Happy Face

If anyone is voting based soleley on the extermist muslim situation then Corbyn would be their only choice. May will keep the same foreign policy we've had for decades, she'll keep the same trade in place with the nations that offer material support to ISIS, she will not increase the budgets of the police, MI5 or GCHQ and having failed to hit 4 or 5 immigration targets as home secretary and Tory leader, her new target is worthless and both she and David Davis have said it is not to be achieved by the end of the next parliament. On the other hand, Corbyn offers an entirely new approach to foreign affairs that will pursue ALL diplomatic solutions before considering any strikes whatsoever (if he ever would). He promises to end the trade with states funding terror AND he promises to increase budgets of security services. He's also more likely to reduce immigration, purely because his £10 minimum wage and abolishment of zero hours contracts makes it much more attractive to hire Brits and there's less low paid work for immigrants to come for.

Pic above doesn't do it justice https://twitter.com/MikeAshleyLies/status/871800846320902144

Probably the sun.

He's pressed the nuclear button.

FIFA statement:

Our kids love going to the library and we've bought them hundreds of books. For parents that can't afford many books it must be vital to bringing their kids reading along. Often see parents in there, sat with shoes off like it's a free day out.

Christ, I hope they don't ask for TT user names. I'll never get in again.

Good shot Texas Pete. Can't be tolerating these new arrivals that won't assimilate.

If only there were 71 pages of a thread outlining poster's different reasons for all voting Labour in the general election.

I didn't say either response was right or wrong. PL was saying how people had confronted the attackers with bottles and that, which flies in the face of what has to be police advice. No-one should be expected to do anything but get to somewhere safe, but the 'United 93' type response to jeopardise your own safety is something that should be applauded though, right?

Should we ban you now based on the probable outcome?

Goldeena lying in deep bath with her sisters, plugged into the GCHQ email and web search database, identifying people to take out before they do owt wrong.

Think we've adopted a very American attitude as a society. Before we had "The troubles" and "keep calm and carry on". Now it's "war on terror" and "run, hide, tell".

Not much difference for her. She cancelled half her engagements when she was campaigning.

Vauxhall incident unrelated. "Just" a stabbing there.

Saw a tweet or something the other day saying (paraphrasing) "to kill during Ramadan is a great sin" suggesting it's sort of alright, or at least more acceptable any other time. Fuck heads. Utter fuck heads.

On the other hand

Few more polls to come tonight. Could we see a Labour lead?

The question was about Iran wasn't it? They don't have nukes. The concern is that Corbyn will not launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a non nuclear state! Right wingers man. Lunatics.

Totally agree. I don't reject that it's difficult. I'm concerned that politicians are using Trump's idiocy to oversimplify it and boost their own environmental bona fides with the electorate. Theresa May for example, quietly proceeding with multiple fracking sites around the UK while condemning Trump.

The Russians!!

May being much more direct and "honest" here. Avoiding her catchphrases. Clear change of approach and can see it drawing some back.

It's contrary to be consistent in criticising the accord that everyone from UNEP to Greenpeace had issues with? "The deal sets out the objective of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees, but the emissions targets on the table take us closer to 3 degrees. That’s a critical problem." If 99% of criticism is pointing at Trump today, from everyone but lunatics, I don't see any point in adding to that chorus, though I agree with it 100%. I've not seen anyone point to the contradiction of those insisting on the need for effective climate action while not imposing any targets that could be effective at reducing warming one bit. Increasing warming by double the stated objective (if targets were hit) that would minimise catastrophe remains a politically expedient agreed objective, but harmful 'solution'. The latter point does not negate the former but is worth making lest people get the impression that agreements the US walk away from would save the planet.