I thought I had. I've put it in the first bold section below to assist you. Unless you are being needlessly pedantic, which seems to make Chizz think it's a comment that adds to the thread.
1. This study of Labour’s immigration record shows that the initial leap in net migration in 1998 from 48,000 to 140,000 was largely due to factors outside the government’s control. Thereafter, however, there was a deliberate policy of loosening immigration controls in almost every sector – a policy that was not declared in any of the three election manifestos. These policies accounted for two thirds of the 3.6 million net foreign migration under Labour. The other third was due to their decision not to impose transition controls on migrants from the new East European members of the EU – the only aspect of their record on immigration for which they have apologised.
2. The true motivation for these undeclared policies is not clear. Claims were made at the time of economic benefits through higher productivity and greater innovation but no study has found any significant benefits to GDP per head once the increased population has been taken into account. Less emphasised was the effect of a large supply of cheap labour in holding down wages which was, of course, welcome to the powerful business lobby. (So it's not just the Tories who kow tow to big business, in contrast to the more extremem posts on here)
3. There is evidence of a political motive – a desire to render society more multi-cultural. Indeed, a former Labour Special Adviser at the Home Office and Number 10 has written in a newspaper article that it was deliberate government policy from late 2000 to open up the UK to mass immigration. It is the case that migrants from Asia and Africa are significantly more inclined to vote Labour than to vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Furthermore, Labour declined to accept the advice of their own Attorney General that the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in British general elections – a hangover from the imperial past – be phased out. This episode points to an awareness of the potential political benefits of immigration.
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
I had not seen those other posts, but have no doubt they are authentic, so I am certainly disappointed at some of the language there, although none went anywhere near Trump's in suggsting to French voters that it should influence their vote. That was what pissed me off.
Regarding your last quote. I had no way of knowing, but "the Belgian" really proved my point. On Thursday I simply did not find a BBC report of a second individual being involved despite another poster quoting the BBC as his source, followed by a rather perjorative remark about Brussels. We now learn that the Belgian referred to handed himself in to police. I think we can all agree that real ISIS trained people don't do that. In turn when ISIS claimed responsibility they referred to a Belgian. They also claimed responsibility for the Dortmund attack. We all ought to know by now that this is what terrorist organisations do, it is part of the propaganda game. All I was arguing for was a bit of time for the facts to emerge.
Tell me, (and absolutely not to pick an argument) what was your initial conclusion about the Dortmund attack?
Trump didn't suggest to the French that the events should influence their vote as you claim. What he actually said was, '...The French people will not take much more of this. Will have a big effect on presidential election.' You've simply twisted his words to suit your own tiresome agenda much like when you demanded the FA haul Meire up in court for claiming that Charlton fans were racist. How did that work out? You also say it was this supposed suggestion of his was what 'pissed me off.' This is more desperate editing: your comment of 'Utter total wanker' [sic] was in response to his initial statement that it was an act of terrorism and some time before any talk of the election. The next time you're 'monitoring reports' - ha! - you might want reign in the artistic licence you afford yourself.
I thought I had. I've put it in the first bold section below to assist you. Unless you are being needlessly pedantic, which seems to make Chizz think it's a comment that adds to the thread.
1. This study of Labour’s immigration record shows that the initial leap in net migration in 1998 from 48,000 to 140,000 was largely due to factors outside the government’s control. Thereafter, however, there was a deliberate policy of loosening immigration controls in almost every sector – a policy that was not declared in any of the three election manifestos. These policies accounted for two thirds of the 3.6 million net foreign migration under Labour. The other third was due to their decision not to impose transition controls on migrants from the new East European members of the EU – the only aspect of their record on immigration for which they have apologised.
2. The true motivation for these undeclared policies is not clear. Claims were made at the time of economic benefits through higher productivity and greater innovation but no study has found any significant benefits to GDP per head once the increased population has been taken into account. Less emphasised was the effect of a large supply of cheap labour in holding down wages which was, of course, welcome to the powerful business lobby. (So it's not just the Tories who kow tow to big business, in contrast to the more extremem posts on here)
3. There is evidence of a political motive – a desire to render society more multi-cultural. Indeed, a former Labour Special Adviser at the Home Office and Number 10 has written in a newspaper article that it was deliberate government policy from late 2000 to open up the UK to mass immigration. It is the case that migrants from Asia and Africa are significantly more inclined to vote Labour than to vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Furthermore, Labour declined to accept the advice of their own Attorney General that the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in British general elections – a hangover from the imperial past – be phased out. This episode points to an awareness of the potential political benefits of immigration.
I've still no idea if you are responding to my question or not ? You don't make it clear and certainly not from your answer.
Yes, such utter bollocks that you've purposefully responded to a single paragraph of my post - and ignored every single point I made about (a) why this attack fits the definition of terrorism whilst the assailants previous convictions didn't, (b) how you mysteriously claimed that there was no link to ISIS but ignored the fact that he had a handwritten note praising ISIS at the scene, (c) how representatives of other nations expressed the same sentiment as Trump.
Clearly I am the one talking utter bolllocks, Prague. There is nothing embarrassing or that suggests utter bollocks in your posts, No Siree!
My point, in the earlier hours (well minutes really) of this thread, was simply to try and caution against jumping to conclusions.
LOL. Really? Here's a link to your post that caused all of this - here - you quoted a news article and put "total utter wanker". Give it a rest mate, and don't be so cheeky as to refer to my post as "utter bollocks" if you're going to resort to flat out lies like that.
You expressed a concern about jumping to conclusions before that, but it was your post expressing disdain for Trump's statement that got the most bites.
FWIW I was asking myself why this terrorist only shot at policemen and not other citizens in such a public place. It felt "different" to Berlin and Nice, just as the Dortmund attack. Why not just wait at least a few hours to see what emerges? But oh no, from the comfort of their keyboards some people on this thread had it all nailed. And then along comes the POTUS, saying he has "just walked in and seen this" and issues his tweets. Issue politicised. It is utterly ridiculous to suggest I further politicised it. I was reacting to what a politician said, FFS.
That's the job of a world leader, and something that Australian and British representatives both did. In your bizarre little tantrum you felt it was worthy of calling him an utter wanker.
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
I had not seen those other posts, but have no doubt they are authentic, so I am certainly disappointed at some of the language there, although none went anywhere near Trump's in suggsting to French voters that it should influence their vote. That was what pissed me off.
Fact Check: Trump didn't say it should influence their vote, he said it will. Here's his tweet. You know full well how much of a difference that sentiment makes, and it's incredibly disingenuous to claim otherwise.
In fact, does this quote "An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen" sound familiar? It's exactly the same sentiment that Trump expressed, and it's a direct quote from one of your own posts in this thread. You made exactly the same point as Trump.
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 79s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Different tactics from the terrorists too though. ETA and the IRA generally (I know not always, omagh for example) stayed clear of targeting civilians and issuing warnings. AQ tactics were the opposite and IS are indiscriminate.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
The public weren't targets of terrorist action in the 90s? Really?
So you believe people feel safer now than in the 90s despite what has been said here? You agree that it is just because of 24 hr rolling news, as was the point I was answering?
I said generally, and I referred to the IRA and ETA to answer that point is that unfair? I think not.
No, I don't "believe people feel safer now than in the 90s". That's why I asked the question originally.
What realy surprised me was that anyone could think that "the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets". Many members of the public may have felt safer in the 90s (I am not one of them, for what it's worth), but to argue that the public weren't targets of terrorism in the 90s is astonishing. In my view.
Not arguing, it's an opinion. I guess if it were an argument you'd have cited examples too?
I felt safer in the 90s and so did others, as noted above. My contention was more based around the 24 hr news point but as referenced by my quoting another poster - not you.
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
I had not seen those other posts, but have no doubt they are authentic, so I am certainly disappointed at some of the language there, although none went anywhere near Trump's in suggsting to French voters that it should influence their vote. That was what pissed me off.
Fact Check: Trump didn't say it should influence their vote, he said it will. Here's his tweet. You know full well how much of a difference that sentiment makes, and it's incredibly disingenuous to claim otherwise.
In fact, does this quote "An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen" sound familiar? It's exactly the same sentiment that Trump expressed, and it's a direct quote from one of your own posts in this thread. You made exactly the same point as Trump.
You keep avoiding the essence of the point Prague was making. Trump is the senior politician in the world. Yet within minutes he was on social media shooting his mouth off because he saw a 'I told you so moment' and then takes it upon himself to get involved in another country's election. I have no problem with people on here or on social media speculating and judging within minutes of the incident. But world leaders have a responsibility to respond with care and caution after incidents like this. Their words matter. What other world leader made comments within minutes of the incident. It was another example of how he continually demeans the office the electoral college and Putin contrived to drop into his lap.
Not arguing, it's an opinion. I guess if it were an argument you'd have cited examples too?
I felt safer in the 90s and so did others, as noted above. My contention was more based around the 24 hr news point but as referenced by my quoting another poster - not you.
End of, for me.
OK. But you'd agree that to contend that the public weren't targets is way off the mark, I hope.
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
I had not seen those other posts, but have no doubt they are authentic, so I am certainly disappointed at some of the language there, although none went anywhere near Trump's in suggsting to French voters that it should influence their vote. That was what pissed me off.
Fact Check: Trump didn't say it should influence their vote, he said it will. Here's his tweet. You know full well how much of a difference that sentiment makes, and it's incredibly disingenuous to claim otherwise.
In fact, does this quote "An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen" sound familiar? It's exactly the same sentiment that Trump expressed, and it's a direct quote from one of your own posts in this thread. You made exactly the same point as Trump.
You keep avoiding the essence of the point Prague was making. Trump is the senior politician in the world. Yet within minutes he was on social media shooting his mouth off because he saw a 'I told you so moment' and then takes it upon himself to get involved in another country's election. I have no problem with people on here or on social media speculating and judging within minutes of the incident. But world leaders have a responsibility to respond with care and caution after incidents like this. Their words matter. What other world leader made comments within minutes of the incident. It was another example of how he continually demeans the office the electoral college and Putin contrived to drop into his lap.
Some comments issues soon after the shooting suggest Trump was not alone in calling it a terrorist attack....
''France's President Francois Hollande said said in a late Thursday address he is convinced the attack is a terrorist act.''
''Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says Australia's prayers are with the family of the police officer shot dead on Paris' Champs Elysees. He said the shooting had all of the hallmarks of a terror attack.''
''French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting''
The British government released an official statement saying it “strongly condemns the appalling terrorist attack in Paris.”
Speaking to reporters in the early hours of Friday, Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins. called the attacker a "terrorist," saying that his identity had been established but was not going to be released amid an ongoing investigation.
A police arrest warrant issued earlier on Thursday, which was seen by Reuters after the attack, warned of a dangerous individual who had come into France by train from Belgium on Thursday
I had not seen those other posts, but have no doubt they are authentic, so I am certainly disappointed at some of the language there, although none went anywhere near Trump's in suggsting to French voters that it should influence their vote. That was what pissed me off.
Fact Check: Trump didn't say it should influence their vote, he said it will. Here's his tweet. You know full well how much of a difference that sentiment makes, and it's incredibly disingenuous to claim otherwise.
In fact, does this quote "An Islamic terrorist attack assists Le Pen" sound familiar? It's exactly the same sentiment that Trump expressed, and it's a direct quote from one of your own posts in this thread. You made exactly the same point as Trump.
You keep avoiding the essence of the point Prague was making. Trump is the senior politician in the world. Yet within minutes he was on social media shooting his mouth off because he saw 'I told you so moment' and then takes it upon himself to get involved in another country's election. I have no problem with people on here or on social media speculating and judging within minutes of the incident. But world leaders have a responsibility to respond with care and caution after incidents like this. Their words matter. What other world leader made comments within minutes of the incident. It was another example of how he continually demeans the office the electoral college and Putin contrived to drop into his lap.
I haven't avoided it though, I've explicitly spelled it out in this thread. Notably:
(a) I stated that the security services would've known nearly immediately (i.e via the note) and it's not unreasonable to assume that in such circumstances communications channels with foreign embassies and diplomats would be opened immediately. The crux of the argument is that Trump knew just as much as the rest of us - I don't for one second believe that to be the case. [My first post in the topic]
(b) Trump's wording was surprisingly measured for him, and in the quotation that Prague has blown out of proportion he only mentions terrorism within the context of "It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant". He made no mention of any alleged race, colour, creed or motive; the man offered his condolences and very little else. [Same post]
Since that post, all I've done is respond directly to the points Prague has been making - actually inlined in to the quotes. I find it a bit unfair to suggest that I've been the one avoiding the essence of his point.
By all means attack the man for his ill conduct where it occurs (i.e double standards on Syria, rash comments on North Korea, poor staff selection.. and the the rest of the large feast that he's gifted us), but this statement does not seem to be worthy of the criticism levelled at him.
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 79s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Different tactics from the terrorists too though. ETA and the IRA generally (I know not always, omagh for example) stayed clear of targeting civilians and issuing warnings. AQ tactics were the opposite and IS are indiscriminate.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
Warrington? The Docklands bombing? All terrorism is reprehensible.
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 79s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Different tactics from the terrorists too though. ETA and the IRA generally (I know not always, omagh for example) stayed clear of targeting civilians and issuing warnings. AQ tactics were the opposite and IS are indiscriminate.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
Warrington? The Docklands bombing? All terrorism is reprehensible.
Did I say it isn't reprehensible? Of course it is. I find the implication that I don't believe this to be false and a little offensive.
I just don't believe that the root cause of people feeling safer in the 90s to now is because of 24 hr news.
Agreed on the examples you mentioned, and the one i did, and many others included.
AQ and latterly the IS inspired lone wolves etc target the public as a stated aim. Indiscriminate, mass casualty events are what they specialise in, and I believe that it is the nature of these attacks that make people fear more today than they did in the 90s.
My initial post was too general, and clumsy, is my position a bit clearer now?
In the UK, there have been five terrorist attacks since the start of the decade (2010), three of which were jihadi-related. Those killed have included a policeman, an MP and a British Army solider. By this time in the 1990s (ie, from 1990 to April 1997) there were 26. Those killed included a policeman, an MP and two British Army soldiers.
Question: for those that were around in the 1990s, do you feel safer now or did you feel safer then?
I felt much safer in the 1990s. That was before 9/11 and before the Islam world started attacking the west on a regular basis. It is a fact that there are muslims plotting to attack targets in the west at this very moment. Fortunately most of these plots get foiled by the security forces. The problem now, that we didn't have in the 90s, is that as well as planned attacks we have to expect regular lone wolf attacks by religious nutters which are impossible for security forces to prevent.
That's interesting and a bit surprising. I can't criticise you for the way you feel. But it was demonstrably more dangerous in the 90s, although people are being allowed to believer they're in more danger now.
Maybe it's a good thing that we are all wary and vigilant. But maybe we are being encouraged to be scared of terrorists nowadays because it feeds into the government's objectives and we weren't in the 90s because it didn't. Who knows?
24 hour news feeds, the internet and social media have certainly contributed to people feeling more scared about the world. In the 79s, 80s and 90s the IRA in the UK and Ireland and ETA in Spain were responsible for far more acts of terrorism than happen in Europe now but it was a totally different type of media then.
Different tactics from the terrorists too though. ETA and the IRA generally (I know not always, omagh for example) stayed clear of targeting civilians and issuing warnings. AQ tactics were the opposite and IS are indiscriminate.
I'm totally against blaming Islam for the acts of criminal psychopaths but the main reason the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets. They are now. Surely people can agree on this general point??
The public weren't targets of terrorist action in the 90s? Really?
So you believe people feel safer now than in the 90s despite what has been said here? You agree that it is just because of 24 hr rolling news, as was the point I was answering?
I said generally, and I referred to the IRA and ETA to answer that point is that unfair? I think not.
No, I don't "believe people feel safer now than in the 90s". That's why I asked the question originally.
What realy surprised me was that anyone could think that "the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets". Many members of the public may have felt safer in the 90s (I am not one of them, for what it's worth), but to argue that the public weren't targets of terrorism in the 90s is astonishing. In my view.
To be clear, @Super_Eddie_Youds I don't disagree with anything you have said, except the contention that members of the public were not targets of terrorist action in the 90s. We all know they were, so maybe it was a slip of the keyboard on your earlier post.
I just said that all terrorism is reprehensible - I never said you didn't think that: who would disagree with that? Just that the IRA were indiscriminate in their terrorism. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
You've simply twisted his words to suit your own tiresome agenda much like when you demanded the FA haul Meire up in court for claiming that Charlton fans were racist. How did that work out?
I must admit that while away from this site I spent too much time wondering "WTF is Redskin on about?"
After doing a search I finally realised you were presumably talking about this Trust initiative. Just to set the record straight, it wasn't my personal initiative, although i fully supported it. The initial post announcing it on CL received 122 likes, and overwhelmingly favourable comments. So it seems to have correctly gauged the mood of most Charlton supporters. But as I say, I would not wish anyone to think it was my initiative.
Re @Super_Eddie_Youds comments, I get where he is coming from. The IRA quite often gave warnings before their bombs. Although not always, notably the Tavern in the Town. The current mob seem to glory in targetting the most innocent. In that sense they seem more perverse, devoid of any rational thought, and thus more frightening to many. Yet the stats that @Chizz quotes show we are more at risk when we get in a car. That's the way "terrorists" work, to create irrational fear. The correct response is surely to try and fight it by getting on with our lives and not change our behaviour or lifestyles because of them. Same as many of us must do who have fear, (or simply in my case some irrational misgivings), about flying.
Re @Super_Eddie_Youds comments, I get where he is coming from. The IRA quite often gave warnings before their bombs. Although not always, notably the Tavern in the Town. The current mob seem to glory in targetting the most innocent. In that sense they seem more perverse, devoid of any rational thought, and thus more frightening to many. Yet the stats that @Chizz quotes show we are more at risk when we get in a car. That's the way "terrorists" work, to create irrational fear. The correct response is surely to try and fight it by getting on with our lives and not change our behaviour or lifestyles because of them. Same as many of us must do who have fear, (or simply in my case some irrational misgivings), about flying.
Speaking from over here, the perspective on whether we feel safer now than in the 1990s is different.
I think a significant part of the different feeling that people have about terrorism is emotional. Our reactions (about attacks in Western Europe only, similar and more violent attacks have been happening elsewhere for decades, as anyone affected by Tamil Tigers terrorism would attest) relate to the different tactics employed by the terrorists with which we are most familiar.
I detest the Provisional IRA, but would accept that, with certain exceptions (most notably and horrifically in the use of proxy bombs), they did seek to provide warnings of attacks where there was a significant chance of civilian death. Where, as in Omagh, you had a failure to provide an adequate warning (because the dissidents were less competent), large scale casualties were inevitable. This luxury was, of course, not afforded when police, soldiers, prison officers, judges or politicians were the main or sole target.
In addition they were involved in a propaganda war, they could not afford to have many mass killings, as the intent was to change public opinion to an outcome that favoured their aims.
Obviously, I do not agree with their self image, but they saw themselves as soldiers/freedom fighters, the inheritors of the mantle of the IRA in the Irish War of Independence (some of whom, by any definition, committed terrorist acts).
Unlike IRA bomb makers, the ISIS-inspired and ISIS/Al Qaida/Boko Haram suicide attackers, in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, are generally disposable assets, the least trained and valuable of their supporters.
The valuable members of the organisation are those who manufacture the truck bombs or suicide vests, and those who brainwash others into carrying out the attacks.
Suicide attackers are a cheap and easy means of delivering maximum death, destruction, mayhem and hysteria. In Syria and Iraq, they are used as the equivalent of the US military's "Shock and Awe", in attacking opposition strongholds. They are used, almost as a combination heavy artillery and aerial bombardment in Syria by (or in assistance of) groups that Western governments support, because they are effective.
In Europe, there is no wider political purpose in these attacks, beyond the chaos and suffering that they produce, and the hoped for overreaction by their enemies. But, again, it appears that, where an attack has been plotted, the chosen attacker is considered unimpressive within their community.
We struggle to understand how anyone can carry out such an attack, and the strangeness of the motivation, and, as well as the horrific carnage caused, makes this form of terrorism more terrifying. But, for me, it is also a good thing, because, if we cannot comprehend it, it means we have not come to accept such behaviour as in some way normal.
When the French people go to the Polls tomorrow they will vote with their heads and their hearts. I don't for one minute think they will be swayed by whether Donald Trump blames ISIS for this attrocity or not. France have suffered a number ot terrorist outrages over the past couple of years and as far as I know most if not all have been carried out by people loyal to Islamic State. If the people of France vote in Le Pen, then it will be because of the outrages that the terrorists are inflicting on innocent people and policeman throughout France, not because Donald Trump has stated the truth.
I agree Trump will have little influence. By noon today (French time) it was reported that nearly 30% of the electorate had already voted which is slightly up on 2012. And later on tonight we will have exit polls followed by preliminary results - they normally have a first count complete at 250 centres within two hours of closing the polls.
We have no idea how the different regions will play out but the bookies make a Macron vs LePen run off as the favourite outcome.
The fact is that Le Pen bounced into a rant about deporting suspects on a terror list and taking immigration down to zero. A tad inconvenient that the killer was a crim from NE Paris who didn't spray cafes with bullets - he shot a traffic cop and wounded two others. The fact is that Le Pen polling has been static at around 23% for a while now. She will almost certainly win through to the second round because she has a solid constituency - her people will turn out.
But her economic policy is to crash out of the euro and EU, bring down the retirement age (uncosted) and protect the 35 hour week. Melenchon on the far left spouts much the same and he was stuck at 19%.
Meanwhile Fillon(19%) and Macron (24%) have credible economic policies tied into laying off some public sector workers and freeing up labour markets. Basically encourage the creation of jobs to reduce unemployment. So the people have two choices: policy shift or blame the system... or in Le Pen's case blame Islam and immigrants too!
Whoever goes through with Le Pen is tipped to win 60:40 - why? Because Le Pen will only pick up a fraction of votes from candidates knocked out. Very few socialists supporting Hamon and Melenchon (if he goes out) are going to vote Front National in May - those two have a combined poll of 26%. That's a huge chunk who won't vote Le Pen in May.
Similarly the majority of Fillon and Macron supporters will switch to the one who wins through - they are both pro EU and pro economic reform. And for this same reason it is unlikely that Melenchon will beat both Fillon and Macron and win second spot. In other words voters committed to economic reform will today choose whether they support Macron or Fillon but they are far less likely to vote for the anti establishment candidates.
The real question is whether Macron can get his vote out - he is top of the polls but he is very new and an independent - he doesn't yet have a fully fledged machine. As we have seen with Brexit and Trump, it is the sheer quantity of votes in ALL regions which determines the overall result.
And for that reason, the events on Thursday night might not make a big difference two days later. The french have been living with a state of emergency for a couple of years now. Le Pen is likely to win through the first round but it will take a political earthquake to shift a 60:40 opinion poll against her in a couple of weeks time. Her stated views last week before and after the attack appear to make this even less likely. In response to @NornIrishAddick it is democracy which continues to be the norm as voters make their choices at the ballot box.
As for the on-going "do you feel safer now than in the 90s" thing, to be honest I don't think I feel any different. There's a vanishingly small chance I'm going to be killed by a terrorist attack, just as there was back then. I'm more likely to get killed in a road accident, or by falling off a ladder at home.
When the French people go to the Polls tomorrow they will vote with their heads and their hearts. I don't for one minute think they will be swayed by whether Donald Trump blames ISIS for this attrocity or not. France have suffered a number ot terrorist outrages over the past couple of years and as far as I know most if not all have been carried out by people loyal to Islamic State. If the people of France vote in Le Pen, then it will be because of the outrages that the terrorists are inflicting on innocent people and policeman throughout France, not because Donald Trump has stated the truth.
I agree Trump will have little influence. By noon today (French time) it was reported that nearly 30% of the electorate had already voted which is slightly up on 2012. And later on tonight we will have exit polls followed by preliminary results - they normally have a first count complete at 250 centres within two hours of closing the polls.
We have no idea how the different regions will play out but the bookies make a Macron vs LePen run off as the favourite outcome.
The fact is that Le Pen bounced into a rant about deporting suspects on a terror list and taking immigration down to zero. A tad inconvenient that the killer was a crim from NE Paris who didn't spray cafes with bullets - he shot a traffic cop and wounded two others. The fact is that Le Pen polling has been static at around 23% for a while now. She will almost certainly win through to the second round because she has a solid constituency - her people will turn out.
But her economic policy is to crash out of the euro and EU, bring down the retirement age (uncosted) and protect the 35 hour week. Melenchon on the far left spouts much the same and he was stuck at 19%.
Meanwhile Fillon(19%) and Macron (24%) have credible economic policies tied into laying off some public sector workers and freeing up labour markets. Basically encourage the creation of jobs to reduce unemployment. So the people have two choices: policy shift or blame the system... or in Le Pen's case blame Islam and immigrants too!
Whoever goes through with Le Pen is tipped to win 60:40 - why? Because Le Pen will only pick up a fraction of votes from candidates knocked out. Very few socialists supporting Hamon and Melenchon (if he goes out) are going to vote Front National in May - those two have a combined poll of 26%. That's a huge chunk who won't vote Le Pen in May.
Similarly the majority of Fillon and Macron supporters will switch to the one who wins through - they are both pro EU and pro economic reform. And for this same reason it is unlikely that Melenchon will beat both Fillon and Macron and win second spot. In other words voters committed to economic reform will today choose whether they support Macron or Fillon but they are far less likely to vote for the anti establishment candidates.
The real question is whether Macron can get his vote out - he is top of the polls but he is very new and an independent - he doesn't yet have a fully fledged machine. As we have seen with Brexit and Trump, it is the sheer quantity of votes in ALL regions which determines the overall result.
And for that reason, the events on Thursday night might not make a big difference two days later. The french have been living with a state of emergency for a couple of years now. Le Pen is likely to win through the first round but it will take a political earthquake to shift a 60:40 opinion poll against her in a couple of weeks time. Her stated views last week before and after the attack appear to make this even less likely. In response to @NornIrishAddick it is democracy which continues to be the norm as voters make their choices at the ballot box.
More concerned with developments across the Irish Sea, I really don't think that the partial media blackout is sustainable any longer, the potential for disaster in Northern Ireland increased dramatically with Brexit and the breakdown of power sharing, MM's death and a general election in the offing provide further incentives to dissidents. A bomb left outside a primary school, watch how the media deals with it.
As for the on-going "do you feel safer now than in the 90s" thing, to be honest I don't think I feel any different. There's a vanishingly small chance I'm going to be killed by a terrorist attack, just as there was back then. I'm more likely to get killed in a road accident, or by falling off a ladder at home.
It's not the result, but more accurate than an exit poll. A French thing.
If that is the final figure for Le Pen, I am delighted because it would represent a lower figure than her opinion polls for most of this year. In March she was above 26%, and the graph has been downward ever since.
So any "benefit" from Thursday's attack did not materialise.
I am cautiously pleased, as I was after the recent Dutch result, and the Austrian result back in September, as well as fading AfD in Germany.
Comments
Unless you are being needlessly pedantic, which seems to make Chizz think it's a comment that adds to the thread.
1. This study of Labour’s immigration record shows that the initial leap in net migration in 1998 from 48,000 to 140,000 was largely due to factors outside the government’s control.
Thereafter, however, there was a deliberate policy of loosening immigration controls in almost every sector – a policy that was not declared in any of the three election manifestos. These policies accounted for two thirds of the 3.6 million net foreign migration under Labour.
The other third was due to their decision not to impose transition controls on migrants from the new East European members of the EU – the only aspect of their record on immigration for which they have apologised.
2. The true motivation for these undeclared policies is not clear. Claims were made at the time of economic benefits through higher productivity and greater innovation but no study has found any significant benefits to GDP per head once the increased population has been taken into account. Less emphasised was the effect of a large supply of cheap labour in holding down wages which was, of course, welcome to the powerful business lobby. (So it's not just the Tories who kow tow to big business, in contrast to the more extremem posts on here)
3. There is evidence of a political motive – a desire to render society more multi-cultural. Indeed, a former Labour Special Adviser at the Home Office and Number 10 has written in a newspaper article that it was deliberate government policy from late 2000 to open up the UK to mass immigration. It is the case that migrants from Asia and Africa are significantly more inclined to vote Labour than to vote Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Furthermore, Labour declined to accept the advice of their own Attorney General that the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in British general elections – a hangover from the imperial past – be phased out. This episode points to an awareness of the potential political benefits of immigration.
How did that work out?
You also say it was this supposed suggestion of his was what 'pissed me off.' This is more desperate editing: your comment of 'Utter total wanker' [sic] was in response to his initial statement that it was an act of terrorism and some time before any talk of the election.
The next time you're 'monitoring reports' - ha! - you might want reign in the artistic licence you afford yourself.
I'll ask again what is unregistered immigration ?
What realy surprised me was that anyone could think that "the general public felt safer in the 90s is because they weren't targets". Many members of the public may have felt safer in the 90s (I am not one of them, for what it's worth), but to argue that the public weren't targets of terrorism in the 90s is astonishing. In my view.
I felt safer in the 90s and so did others, as noted above. My contention was more based around the 24 hr news point but as referenced by my quoting another poster - not you.
End of, for me.
(a) I stated that the security services would've known nearly immediately (i.e via the note) and it's not unreasonable to assume that in such circumstances communications channels with foreign embassies and diplomats would be opened immediately. The crux of the argument is that Trump knew just as much as the rest of us - I don't for one second believe that to be the case. [My first post in the topic]
(b) Trump's wording was surprisingly measured for him, and in the quotation that Prague has blown out of proportion he only mentions terrorism within the context of "It’s a very, very terrible thing that’s going on in the world today. But it looks like another terrorist attack and what can you say? It just never ends. We have to be strong and we have to be vigilant". He made no mention of any alleged race, colour, creed or motive; the man offered his condolences and very little else. [Same post]
Since that post, all I've done is respond directly to the points Prague has been making - actually inlined in to the quotes. I find it a bit unfair to suggest that I've been the one avoiding the essence of his point.
By all means attack the man for his ill conduct where it occurs (i.e double standards on Syria, rash comments on North Korea, poor staff selection.. and the the rest of the large feast that he's gifted us), but this statement does not seem to be worthy of the criticism levelled at him.
I just don't believe that the root cause of people feeling safer in the 90s to now is because of 24 hr news.
Agreed on the examples you mentioned, and the one i did, and many others included.
AQ and latterly the IS inspired lone wolves etc target the public as a stated aim. Indiscriminate, mass casualty events are what they specialise in, and I believe that it is the nature of these attacks that make people fear more today than they did in the 90s.
My initial post was too general, and clumsy, is my position a bit clearer now?
Whether it's terrorism, football, celebrity, politics.
Has it made us more informed? Not sure.
You've simply twisted his words to suit your own tiresome agenda much like when you demanded the FA haul Meire up in court for claiming that Charlton fans were racist.
How did that work out?
I must admit that while away from this site I spent too much time wondering "WTF is Redskin on about?"
After doing a search I finally realised you were presumably talking about this Trust initiative. Just to set the record straight, it wasn't my personal initiative, although i fully supported it. The initial post announcing it on CL received 122 likes, and overwhelmingly favourable comments. So it seems to have correctly gauged the mood of most Charlton supporters. But as I say, I would not wish anyone to think it was my initiative.
I think a significant part of the different feeling that people have about terrorism is emotional. Our reactions (about attacks in Western Europe only, similar and more violent attacks have been happening elsewhere for decades, as anyone affected by Tamil Tigers terrorism would attest) relate to the different tactics employed by the terrorists with which we are most familiar.
I detest the Provisional IRA, but would accept that, with certain exceptions (most notably and horrifically in the use of proxy bombs), they did seek to provide warnings of attacks where there was a significant chance of civilian death. Where, as in Omagh, you had a failure to provide an adequate warning (because the dissidents were less competent), large scale casualties were inevitable. This luxury was, of course, not afforded when police, soldiers, prison officers, judges or politicians were the main or sole target.
In addition they were involved in a propaganda war, they could not afford to have many mass killings, as the intent was to change public opinion to an outcome that favoured their aims.
Obviously, I do not agree with their self image, but they saw themselves as soldiers/freedom fighters, the inheritors of the mantle of the IRA in the Irish War of Independence (some of whom, by any definition, committed terrorist acts).
Unlike IRA bomb makers, the ISIS-inspired and ISIS/Al Qaida/Boko Haram suicide attackers, in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, are generally disposable assets, the least trained and valuable of their supporters.
The valuable members of the organisation are those who manufacture the truck bombs or suicide vests, and those who brainwash others into carrying out the attacks.
Suicide attackers are a cheap and easy means of delivering maximum death, destruction, mayhem and hysteria. In Syria and Iraq, they are used as the equivalent of the US military's "Shock and Awe", in attacking opposition strongholds. They are used, almost as a combination heavy artillery and aerial bombardment in Syria by (or in assistance of) groups that Western governments support, because they are effective.
In Europe, there is no wider political purpose in these attacks, beyond the chaos and suffering that they produce, and the hoped for overreaction by their enemies. But, again, it appears that, where an attack has been plotted, the chosen attacker is considered unimpressive within their community.
We struggle to understand how anyone can carry out such an attack, and the strangeness of the motivation, and, as well as the horrific carnage caused, makes this form of terrorism more terrifying. But, for me, it is also a good thing, because, if we cannot comprehend it, it means we have not come to accept such behaviour as in some way normal.
We have no idea how the different regions will play out but the bookies make a Macron vs LePen run off as the favourite outcome.
The fact is that Le Pen bounced into a rant about deporting suspects on a terror list and taking immigration down to zero. A tad inconvenient that the killer was a crim from NE Paris who didn't spray cafes with bullets - he shot a traffic cop and wounded two others. The fact is that Le Pen polling has been static at around 23% for a while now. She will almost certainly win through to the second round because she has a solid constituency - her people will turn out.
But her economic policy is to crash out of the euro and EU, bring down the retirement age (uncosted) and protect the 35 hour week. Melenchon on the far left spouts much the same and he was stuck at 19%.
Meanwhile Fillon(19%) and Macron (24%) have credible economic policies tied into laying off some public sector workers and freeing up labour markets. Basically encourage the creation of jobs to reduce unemployment. So the people have two choices: policy shift or blame the system... or in Le Pen's case blame Islam and immigrants too!
Whoever goes through with Le Pen is tipped to win 60:40 - why? Because Le Pen will only pick up a fraction of votes from candidates knocked out. Very few socialists supporting Hamon and Melenchon (if he goes out) are going to vote Front National in May - those two have a combined poll of 26%. That's a huge chunk who won't vote Le Pen in May.
Similarly the majority of Fillon and Macron supporters will switch to the one who wins through - they are both pro EU and pro economic reform. And for this same reason it is unlikely that Melenchon will beat both Fillon and Macron and win second spot. In other words voters committed to economic reform will today choose whether they support Macron or Fillon but they are far less likely to vote for the anti establishment candidates.
The real question is whether Macron can get his vote out - he is top of the polls but he is very new and an independent - he doesn't yet have a fully fledged machine. As we have seen with Brexit and Trump, it is the sheer quantity of votes in ALL regions which determines the overall result.
And for that reason, the events on Thursday night might not make a big difference two days later. The french have been living with a state of emergency for a couple of years now. Le Pen is likely to win through the first round but it will take a political earthquake to shift a 60:40 opinion poll against her in a couple of weeks time. Her stated views last week before and after the attack appear to make this even less likely. In response to @NornIrishAddick it is democracy which continues to be the norm as voters make their choices at the ballot box.
As for the on-going "do you feel safer now than in the 90s" thing, to be honest I don't think I feel any different. There's a vanishingly small chance I'm going to be killed by a terrorist attack, just as there was back then. I'm more likely to get killed in a road accident, or by falling off a ladder at home.
A bomb left outside a primary school, watch how the media deals with it.
If that is the final figure for Le Pen, I am delighted because it would represent a lower figure than her opinion polls for most of this year. In March she was above 26%, and the graph has been downward ever since.
So any "benefit" from Thursday's attack did not materialise.
I am cautiously pleased, as I was after the recent Dutch result, and the Austrian result back in September, as well as fading AfD in Germany.