itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's your opinion (and mine), but it's not a fact. Only the individuals who cheered actually know why they cheered. I wouldn't put it past some of them to have been cheering for the worse reason, frankly.

I hope you adopt the same disdain for the many existing MP's who cheered Tony Blair's Iraq war speech/vote and sit at the top of their parties tree. 

3 hours ago, blandy said:

It doesn't actually matter, in terms of perceptions. They may have been cheering that "they won" a vote, yet the vote was to defeat a motion to remove the 1% limit on pay increases for public service peeps - nurses, firemen etc. They might have been happy their team won, but they cheered keeping payrises below inflation, making poorly paid, but vital public servants poorer. It was spectacularly insensitive, I thought, regardles of the assumed reason.

That's a little different though - the sensitivity bit - because a comment like that definitely changes/reinforces peoples opinions, well exampled by the young person who made the point in the context of mainstream media.

However, the comment made was not on the insensitivity to the vote but that they cheered voting down the pay increase. That's not accurate and it reinforces a false narrative rather than fact.
It should have been challenged, particularity as it was a Queens speech and some in the BBCQT room must know Conservative rebels were looming and the pay review is coming.

Misappropriating fact for a political narrative s wholly divisive and both sides should be ashamed when they do it or support those who do. Corbyn and Hamas, the red button or even the bus, they were all false narratives and they continue to divide.

17 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

It will go through. The Government are just going through the motions and the decision has already been made.

It is unreal that the fit and proper test by Ofcom did not take into account the phone hacking scandal. To allow the Murdochs even more control resulting in more influence over our Government is disgusting.

But surely a Guardian favourite - Sharon White, Chief Exec of Ofcom - is doing a superb job and should be trusted implicitly in her judgement. 

Very tongue in cheek especially as I don't truly know her influence in this whole thing and what Ofcom could/should be doing....

I'm playing devils advocate here because we both know the Conservatives are playing politics, but technically they didn't just vote 'not to remove the cap', but to wait until the pay review is completed before making a decision. However, I think we both know how often recommendations are actually fully embraced by political parties!

Quote

"What I can say is that we will not make our decision on public sector pay until the pay review body has reported. We will listen to what it says, and to what people in this House have said, before making a final decision." 

https://hansard.digiminster.com/Commons/2017-06-28/debates/BC4CBE6F-0750-4939-A277-0745C918E944/HealthSocialCareAndSecurity#contribution-C8A5D5BC-B8C5-4DD7-8FF6-6CCB8A36650F

It's important to make the distinction because any failure to now take on board the review and others opinions will make them look even weaker.

Though clearly misinformation is the order of the day as watching question time I saw Nick Ferrari say mainstream media is important for journalistic integrity and then a woman puts her hand up to tell us a story she probably saw on social media that the Conservatives cheered the public sector pay defeat, when they were really cheering an amendment victory......it couldn't have been a more ignorant response and the Canary woman nodding away just shows what a mess the media is really in.

1 hour ago, PompeyVillan said:

Looks like some Labour MPs can't help themselves but rebel against Corbyn. 4 more front benchers gone. 

Jesus wept. Just back the man for goodness sake, give him a chance. He's earned it.

I'm all for a coalition of views within the party but there needs to be unity. 

I don't think it's that bad and it gives them a chance to show they can be united even when they disagree.

I'm not a big fan of Chuka but fair play to him for tabling/voting for what he believed in. Corbyn was 'King of the Rebels'.

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

They must check your voting record surely when going through applicants?

They ask which party you belong/belonged to and I'd imagine not being of a certain political persuasion does count against you.

19 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

I've a close friend who works for an MP. They do all this and write speeches for this MP. This MP is highly respected in their constitutency and returned a large majority recently. If an MP is doing their job properly (engaging with constituents) their workload is massive and they need alot of help. There are two employees of this nature for the MP I'm referencing. 

And I'm told that's really not that unusual. I've spoken with highly articulate 'assistants' to my local MP, on similar, I should imagine quite meager salary. Given the complex nature of the work, it's not an easy days pay. 

It was a little tongue in cheek as it's quite a list but meh, let's play!

I work with caseworkers, had friends who have done the job and have been a caseworker myself (voluntarily. as some parties can't afford to pay). I also spent many years applying for those positions because I was shocked at how little some MP's really knew about their area. (I said some, many are superb)

I understand the job and how hard it is but I also feel that some of that workload described says more about the what the MP doesn't already know than how difficult the job is....or maybe he's just being super, super descriptive! 

1 minute ago, theboyangel said:

This is my local mp and someone I have voted for before.

didnt at the general election and won't ever again. 

He's clearly forgotten the amount of emergency services personnel living in his constituency.... 

Its a shame really as for once we hear a politician speaking honestly, sadly it just confirms how far removed they are from the public they serve. 

 

Sadly so.

Before he was elected I asked my local MP (candidate at the time) how he felt about building homes on the greenbelt considering there was no land (his words, not mine). He hushed quietly that 'he was for it'.
When I then asked how he would manage that opinion as an MP when it's in direct opposition to his Council (he was a local councillor at the time) he asked what I meant because he wasn't at odds........when I explained to him that he just contradicted his local policy and the general election manifesto, he shrugged and moved the conversation to police cuts and terrorism.

Is a very nice chap though.

50 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

better paid than momentum , though of course you do get to keep your benefit money with them

You could just become an MP without the title or salary of an MP.....

Quote

Lloyd Russell-Moyle is a Labour and Co-operative Party MP looking for a highly motivated caseworker to support the work of his busy constituency office in Brighton.

Lloyd became an MP in the 2017 election and is setting up an office, initially the person will be based in Woodingdean and in Kemptown.

The successful candidate will provide information, advice and support to constituents on a variety of issues and liaise with government agencies, the voluntary sector and others to help resolve matters for constituents.

Key tasks
• Attend surgeries and other meetings to assist the Member in dealing with constituents’ issues.
• Deal with queries from constituents by phone or in person, and provide information, advice and support on a wide range of issues including housing, benefits, immigration, and other matters, gathering relevant information and taking the appropriate action to progress or resolve the case.
• Manage own caseload and progress of casework, ensuring all cases are dealt with in a sensitive and confidential manner and accurate records are kept.
• On behalf of the Member, responding to constituents on casework and policy issues raised, undertaking research thoroughly and accurately, and drafting correspondence which reflects the Member’s views.
• Maintain an up-to-date knowledge of relevant guidelines/legislation as appropriate in dealing with casework.
• Analyse patterns of enquiries and produce reports.
• Undertake general administrative, secretarial and other tasks.
• Liaise with relevant groups.

Person specification
• Excellent verbal and written communication skills and confident interacting with people at all levels.
• Able to prioritise a demanding workload to meet deadlines and an eye for detail.
• Able to deal with issues in a confidential manner.
• Able to work effectively in a small team.
• Competent use of IT. Experience of a casework management system would be beneficial.
• Experience of working and dealing with the general public.
• Previous experience in an MP’s office is desirable, but not essential, but experience with an advisory service such as the CAB or a Union is required.
• Awareness and understanding of current political issues.
• Sympathetic to the aims and objectives of the Labour Party and/or Co-operative Parties.

http://www.w4mpjobs.org/JobDetails.aspx?jobid=61175

1 hour ago, markavfc40 said:

Of course you will find good and bad individuals in all parties but looking at overall actions/statistics under the Tories you will find a huge increase in children living in poverty, a huge increase in disabled people taking their own lives due to cuts to benefits, a huge increase in working poor, a huge increase in those reliant on food banks, a failure over the last seven years to address the issues in social housing, the fact they opposed legislation in regard to ensuring private landlords make their homes fit for human habitation, a huge increase in elderly people blocking beds on hospital wards or being left vulnerable and abandoned in their own homes due to a lack of social care provision. Increases in hospital and GP waiting times including huge problems in A and E, reductions in Police officers and firefighters leading to failings in community policing and fire prevention. The list is endless.

Just as a general observation we have seen a divide in the country over the last seven years that the Government has failed to address and has in fact actively encouraged. The pointing the finger at and demonising those on benefits, the pointing the finger at Johnny Foreigner for all our woes. The Tories are poison.

The rise of UKIP can very much be attributed to Labour's failures and so you are correct that many terrible things have and continue to occur under the Conservatives, but I don't think you are giving Blair/Brown and all the other career politicians that remain in their positions equal weight in criticism. Unless you're happy with a million dead in Iraq, many no shows in votes and inquiry after inquiry (look at Hillsborough) swept under the carpet. This is also particularity true of devolved powers where local councils from both political sides have been letting down our communities for decades. Funnily enough, when elected, UKIP do pretty well in local politics. 

Both lists of failures are endless, which is my entire point. By being so divisive we have done our society and nation a disservice, and again, the rise of UKIP is a perfect example of that. Yet nobody talks about why we end up with these one-policy groups, just that we must get rid of them......well that certainly worked for the EU referendum.

I worked in many of the industries/sectors you have drawn attention to and to be honest the cuts didn't cause the biggest problems, not to us guys on the front line, it was the stupid decisions of parties playing politics with regulation and policy which in many cases moved funding away from the front line, plus lower wages and higher rents. (Remember, the cost of housing rose the most under Labour, not the Conservatives...but for me that's just another unhelpful stat when taken in isolation....)

Those policy/regulatory decisions created the real cuts, this time administered by the private sector, because New Labour (like the Conservatives) were obsessed with privatisation.
In benefits that was a disaster but Labour kept chucking money at it until the Conservatives rightly (but too harshly) changed the process. And not even that much! Most of what you see today is New Labour structure, which is why it keeps failing.

eg - When supporting people back into work for a private company (govt contract) I had £6k client spend (retained by the private company if not all used up), could earn £1000+ after the first appointment (we were meant to see 13 people a day), I was discouraged from working with the hardest to help (my contract was 'Helping the Hardest to Help'), and earned around 30% more than my JobCentrePlus partners. We even had psychologists that weren't allowed to do complex work.
Our company was so inefficient that Scotland tried to get rid but Labour allowed them to rebrand and win bigger contracts. It was such a poorly administered programme that even Birmingham City Council (biggest council in Europe) was too small to bid for the contract!

New Labour were just as poisonous because they too often relied on ignorance as a method of governance. You can call the 'Tories poison' if you like but there are many good individuals in all parties (as you say) and it's important they rise to the top or the bad ones learn from their mistakes.....judging from both cabinets I think it's safe to say that at the moment it's career politics as usual....apart from one man, who only got his chance because of a joke nomination.

39 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

@mjmooney and @chrisp65 have pretty much answered this for me but yes I do.

Of course I believe people can also do other things like give to charity, help out at foodbanks, go out and give a homeless person a meal and a blanket etc. As an individual though most of us can’t impact on a persons life as much as governments can.

I can twist this around and say that I can’t see how anyone who votes Tory has much of a social conscience. How could you knowingly stick an X next to one of their candidates knowing what they have done and what they intend to do. Knowing how they have continually demonised and taken from those most vulnerable in our society be they disabled, old and frail, out of work or working poor. Knowing how they are wilfully destroying our NHS and setting it up to fail, knowing how they have massively underfunded social care meaning we have those reliant on it stuck on hospital wards or abandoned in their own homes, knowing how they are underfunding education, knowing how they have left us with a lack of Police officers and firemen, knowing they are doing nothing to address the huge lack of social housing, knowing how they voted down proposed legislation requiring private landlords to make their homes fit for human habitation, and now knowing how they failed to act upon recommendations to change fire regulations in relation to tower blocks.

I genuinely don’t know how anyone can vote Tory other than thinking they will be a few pennies better off every week. I know I almost certainly am under them but at what cost. I am not beyond being selfish so what about if me or mine become ill, me or mine become old and frail and reliant upon social care, I lose my job and become reliant upon the safety net of the state. Life has to be about more than me and mine though doesn’t it and that is where the social conscience comes in, in that you are concerned about the elderly person living alone down the road, the disabled guy who has had his benefits cut, the young family who can’t get on the housing ladder and have no social housing options so are paying extortionate rents to live in a damp ridden dump, our future nurses who are having to pay 9k a year to train,  whilst doing so work 40 hours a week on a ward, to get a job with a starting salary of 21k, the millions of children living in poverty, the homeless people. The list is endless in fairness so much so I genuinely struggle to sleep at night thinking about those people so Christ knows how someone who by voting Tory actively encourage it all sleep.

Until Corbyn came in I felt exactly the same about Labour. But then I also had direct voluntary experience with Labour councils, councillors and MP's as well as Conservative ones and the difference in competence was huge. (just in case you weren't sure, Labour were the villains over and over again, they literally didn't give a **** (not a swear word) about people and the work our projects did)

How could anyone vote for a party which did everything the Conservatives did but didn't tell you how poorly they were managing it or how badly you'd be stung when it all fell apart? Now things are different and there is a choice (sort of, the PLP are still useless) but since 2001, anyone being anti-Conservative but voting Labour probably didn't look at the overall picture and was too entrenched in hate.

I always voted for the best local candidate because I saw how policy was made and noticed how infrequently my elected MP's would either vote or speak in parliament. Of course how they voted was important but not as important as why they chose to vote that way....though few people bother to think/ask about that.

People honestly think if they vote for X,Y and Z and not this party that it will make a difference, well sadly that's bullplop. The only way to get change is to vote in good people who are willing to fight for policy and their community. I'd take a rebel over a lazy career politician any day of the week!

44 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That's not how it works.  You don't just get to make a pronouncement that doesn't make sense and then say the above.

7 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

Sadly for you, it is. You have asked pretty much nothing from me that will inform the debate.

You'll have to point out things I have said relative to construction which make no sense.....as I said before, you don't do that. You simply do opposition! Which brings us nicely again to your parting and failed point.

44 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's a shame that you don't want to help all of us who don't know about these things and that all you want to do is repeat already rebutted slights.

I'll help everyone which is why I haven't withdrawn from the conversation...whereas twice you have said you are done with talking to me despite me actually having in-depth knowledge I have been sharing for quite some time....about lots of things not just construction. It's a shame for sure....but not my shame.

Your only POV when replying to me is opposition, with no compromise on your one sided approach. You can''t even accept that my blame perspective holds any weight and when you do throw accusations you direct it at two figures that are easy to hate. You even questioned, not asked about, the Mayoral powers! 

It's frustrating but if I can cope with 14 hour days for three years to save the Aston Arena, I can cope with the occasional flurry of facts directed at your entrenched opinion....I know others have benefited from my knowledge as I have benefit from theirs! 

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

New Labour were at fault for deregulating the financial services and allowing Canary Wharf to get far too big. They obviously then made a decision to bail out failing banks, which of course substantially raising public spending, although the Tories/Conservatives would have almost certainly have done the same in that position. 

Definitely.

Stuff like PFI, welfare to work, increase in leasehold properties, focus on university and away from a wider career spectrum, OFSTED, closing of school kitchens and move onto offsite catering, academies etc. etc. were policies which impacted people on the ground and I believe hurt the most.

I started my love affair with wasted money when working on a Labour crafted 'helping the hardest to help' contract. It was delivered by the private sector and appalling is too weak a crticism. The worst part was the Conservatives came in and rubbed their hands with glee; it was exactly the mechanism for privatisation they were desperate for but now they had cross party support! Absolute disaster! 

19 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Whilst Corbyn does reflect a fairly extreme spending plan, it's clear to all of those with half a brain (and was clear to all those with half a brain at the time) that austerity would both retard economic growth and decimate the public serves that most people in this country value, both of which has happened. We've had a lost decade and most of that is down to the ridiculous logic of 'fiscal contraction-expansion'. 

I see it slightly differently, though we're not too far apart in the final six words.

I always felt it was clear 'to all of those with more than half a brain' that we needed a mix of policy, austerity and spend and that spend/support in certain areas had far outweighed the benefits. Restructuring was needed with an element of austerity, but not austerity across the board. That was exceedingly stupid but local authorities are still culpable, and they continue to cut local services rather than resource draining revenue streams.

This mess didn't start a decade ago when the Tories came in, it started well before the new government were left a note to say there was no money!

1 hour ago, bickster said:

I'm just wondering, who exactly would you describe as "far left" in the U.K.?

Because no one in the main stream of British Politics would fit the fairly well accepted academic description of far left

It was a tongue in cheek comment but for fun; Corbyn's Labour are......if we're going on the accepted academic definition of far-left being the extreme left of a political party or group.......but then accepted academic definitions might also place Western activities as 'terrorism', so meh, I prefer tongue in cheek!

But back to the fun; 'New Labour' were basically Conservatives and Corbyn represents an ideology the main party (many elected MP's) rallied against and still rally against, even if they kept their jobs because of it! Under that accepted academic definition he, or the newest Old Labour are 'far-left'.
Not so fun

13 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Britain First deputy dingbat Jayda Fransen steals an article written by somebody else to post on BF's website.

Not realising it was satire.

Why are the far right always so thick?

Same reason the far left are. They have an agenda and rhetoric and look for the first opportunity to push that.
Those sorts don't care about context or content, just clicks!

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

'Serious recommendations' between fire safety officers and tenants?

This can cover two points above and below! - You express that you have little knowledge whereas I have some. I hope you can simply take my word for it because you don't seem the sort to do research for yourself; or we wouldn't be having this conversation!

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

We did nothing of the sort.

In more than one thread, we established that I have no expertise (I think I may have said very little knowledge or something with that gist) with regard to construction regulation much as the majority probably have. In the EU thread, I put the case that I was talking about the processes and politics concerned with the withdrawal of the UK from the EU rather than being drawn in to a discussion about construction regulation about which I knew and know, obviously, much less than you. I said that was pointless.

It was tongue in cheek because you're obsessed with opposing me rather than either accepting I have knowledge you don't, or specifically asking me about a topic! 

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

We're not talking about whether they were being discussed as an option between people designing buildings, making buildings, intending to use them and so on. I'm sure that sprinkler systems have been 'discussed' since sprinkler systems were first thought of.

We're talking about reviews of regulations, what people are instructed to have to do, what are the standards that are being required - not just a sea of discussions, thoughts, considerations and self-regulation.

Exactly. The review process is done at very many levels from designer to central govt. Therefore no-one is to blame, yet. We're nowhere near that stage!

On 6/21/2017 at 09:24, snowychap said:

The Mayor of London has the powers to require councils to retrofit specific fire-safety measures (whatever they may be), does he?

The coalition government had a 'full term' and May had the full term that she allowed herself. Barwell was one of a succession of ministers durin the last few years of (effectively) the same government.

You're doing it again, blaming others when there is collective fault! The mayor of London has the powers to set up a review, to speak to LA's, to find the funding for improvements and to put conversations onto the agenda....but then for you that's not his job, it's the job of everyone who isn't Labour! 
Funny he can promise to change planning so we get more affordable homes but he can't change the conversation about fire safety. Meh, I guess one wins votes and the other conversation wins the hearts of non-voters.

As we have established and you have confirmed, this isn't your realm so you can either accept facts or keep arguing opposition.

Khan could have done more to drive the agenda, especially with so many Labour councils in London.
The government could have legislated and that includes all ex-housing ministers (plus shadow ones) AND PM.
Local authorities could have imposed planning conditions (the majority of found failed cladding on flats is in Labour councils)
The products pass the fire safety test but perhaps not together, That's two conversations and we are just understanding it all now....before we join the blame game!
The developer clearly looked to save cash as did the designers but then again, pointS above!!!!

McDowell said the residents were - "murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades." Thank god the Labour party is moving on and leaving all those horrible entrenched sorts behind!

On the last point about 'same government'. Nope. This government is very different than the last, particularly in housing. I look forward to you blaming John Healey too, I really like him, he seems genuine, but under your logic and his experience in DCLG, he should be added to the list of accountable and perhaps not the Shadow Minister for Housing,

15 hours ago, snowychap said:

So not the actual recommendations that came about as a result of the incident in 2009 just general chit chat between fire safety officers and tenants.

'Focus on the easiest targets' - what like the government, government departments and ministers with responsibility in the area?

So again just an unspecific 'the issues'. Of course fire safety is not a 'new topic'. The response to fire safety issues in the wake of the Lakanal fire in 2009 is a relatively new topic.

What report in 2009? The inquest reported in March 2013, didn't it?

I don't know precisely what powers the Mayor of London has with respect to ordering councils to retrofit specific fire-safety measures. If he has any of these powers then I'd have thought that the previous Mayor of London would have also had them and that, having been in office for a full term, he'd have had more opportunity to make that happen than someone in office for just over a year.

 

No, serious recommendations made over the decades. Not chit-chat.
It's news to you. But then we established in the other thread that you're not too bothered about construction regulation or the opinion of industry in driving good practice. 

I'm only 35 and they were discussing sprinklers in council buildings a long long time before I even started Uni. When I tried to save the Aston Arena is was one of the first things I checked when doing my H+S report (2012) and the first thing the fire safety officer discussed with me when I kept it open for another 6 months. We had to isolate the non-sprinkler sections.

Informal report which led to the inquest. A bit like now when everyone is spending their time blaming as many Conservatives as they can instead of listening to what people are actually saying.

Yup Snowy I'd portion blame to Boris too. Exactly right, a full term, a bit like May or Barwell never had. Boris did an awful job for London....well, not awful. he did a good job carrying on the good things Ken did.

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

The recommendations that came as a result of the Lakanal fire in 2009 have been in discussion for 20 years?

Or are you just talking about a more general 'discussion' about fire safety?

More general.
Fire safety officers and tenants have always discussed problems with workmanship and value of sprinklers but it's only when something happens that we focus blame on the easiest targets; who are still culpable of course.

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Khan has known about what for 'many years'?

The issues with fire safety. It's not a new topic.
He's been an MP in London for many years, surely to god saw the report in 2009 and by 2016 was the Mayor for a city with the most flats and substandard accommodation in the UK. By working with tenants he campaigned on new housing estates and regeneration so I am assuming he knew.  

If he didn't know then I'm bang wrong (seems v unlikely, particularity with his work history), but I won't be wrong in saying that if he didn't know, he's shown negligence in his role.

I wouldn't go as far as to blame him, though I'd argue he should take as much criticism as people feel Barwell and May deserve.

43 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Local Government has been virtually bankrupted by the Tories. What little funding they have is simply inadequate to do everything that needs doing at local level. The simple truth is, austerity as practiced by this Government costs lives.

Well we can argue the causes of bankruptcy all day because it's not only central governments fault, not by a long shot. However, local authorities can find the money for revenue officers but not a planner or planning policy procedure to enforce sprinklers as part of a planning condition? That's local authority prioritisation/ignorance and nothing to do with their bank account.

14 hours ago, snowychap said:

Four ministers were warned about tower block fire risks

Also from one letter to Stephen Williams:

 

All great points and it's been in discussion for the last 20 years. Labour and Conservatives should hang their heads in shame.

The Tenancy Management Organisation also has two councillors on it, one Labour, one Conservative.  Khan has known about his for many years and as Mayor should take some responsibility considering his powers in the city and the way planning is delivered in London.

That's a big one actually, local government has not taken enough criticism when they can very easily require sprinklers as part of a planning condition....all over London....if it was a priority! 

It doesn't excuse central government from ignoring this problem, especially in shared accommodation, though as I mentioned previously cost is a problem as we're seeing in Wales and perhaps some of those costs will be people lives. Some sprinkler systems don't work properly (or at all) and there has been no investment to make sure water pressure is adequate. In part that's because regulation was rushed through without making sure the infrastructure was in place. That's not inherently bad but it's pretty negligent. 

1 hour ago, mykeyb said:

I didnt vote Labour at the election and wouldnt want them in govenment now but you have to say that the years and years of penny pinching and look the other way when money should have been spent have come back to bit the tory arses in a very painful way in the last month.

Will they learn the lesson this time or will they keep quite and hope it all blows over.

Sorry to go off topic but I wanted to ask whether you consider this Labour and the previous one (New Labour) as different? And if so does it matter to you?

I've never seen a Labour government that really knew how to govern for the people without spending frivolously and so I preferred to vote Conservative as they seem to care about the balance sheet. However, imo things are now different and Labour are more representative of the values I thought we shared...though i'm v sceptical about the quality of many Labour MP's,

19 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

A point for sure, however the other side of the argument is just as extreme. My two pence here is that the normal person wouldn't be radicalised by a religious or anti-religious message. Most of us look at an ISIS video and see idiots, just like we look at the daily express, sun and the daily mail with a huge skepticism. The skepticism is what any terrorist lacks, no matter how you twist or turn it they aren't going to listen to anything else than what they are brainwashed to think about.

EDL, ISIL, KKK, Black Lives Matter, National Action, Golden Dawn, White Aryan Resistance, Black Panthers, National Alliance +++++ are all full of the same, idiotic men and women that can't think for themselves and need some plonker to tell them what to think. Instead of killing each other these groups kill innocent, well meaning, normal people. 

I think perhaps the major difference is how the media outlets work and those stories get softened as you go up the chain and more brutal as you move to social media and chinese whispers. It's still the same message of ignorance and it permeates. 

But then I feel it's the media climate we live in and the anti-Tory union and hyped criticism of everything until we know the facts is as dangerous. We shouldn't be engaging in any public outcry that pitches one against the other unless the whole thing is out in the open....cough, brexit.

13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

is it normal behaviour though  ? Did the PM at the time visit  Lakanal House ? ( genuine Question as I don't know if they did or didn't )  ... ok it was a smaller fire but at the time it was the worse ever tower block fire in the Uk as I recall  ..

I dunno , I've seen it compared to Katrina and I find it a bit baffling    ..... I can understand a VIP visit might bring some comfort to the victims ,makes them know they aren't being forgotten , but seeing as Khan was heckled all it seemed to do was heighten tensions ...who knows , maybe that's what the victims need , a pressure release as such   ?  .... But ,  I'd rather an approach whereby the emergency services focused on the job in hand , the politicians work around the clock to resolve the issues  .. the PR photo opportunities to win votes can be done later once the disaster itself has been resolved 

 

I think you've made an interesting point about heightening tensions, especially for a tower fire. 

Imo she should have been there at first light helping while her guys worked on the next action. No press opportunity, just solidarity. That to me is the the leader I want even if she'd have taken a lot of flack.

However, on the flack side, Khan deserves it as much as Barwell/May and I think fair play to him for showing up to take it. Angry people need to vent somewhere and showing up calms the ongoing conversation. 

It is going to be interesting to see how politicians and the media handle this awful incident.

22 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It's funny how spin works.

Funny isn't the word, it's damn painful!

30 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

The EU typically hiding their problems and coming to the table looking organised but without the blessing/support of many member states.
It's a bit like the 'Health of the EU' survey!