Yet more Conservative manifesto rubbish

So a police officer says crimes are soaring, possibly true , but they do have a gripe with the government , and rightly so with the cut backs, but is it fact or an opinion ?

It's not offensive Oldwomen but I want you to enjoy the chat not be in a spat about GN members - they become endless.

You are right; we do have a real problem with some terrorists who want nothing but our annihilation but I don't think there is more than one group that come into that category.

With all the others we need to talk at some point and, at some point they will want to talk. Those whom you have 'accused' Corbyn of interacting with (it is what all governments and peacemakers do after all) desperate and bad though they were, did not fall into the annihilators category so were worth speaking to, I would have thought.

We will have to talk ABOUT the one group who believe they are so right they can kill everyone who doesn't agree with them - Now what does that remind me of - oh yes, some sections of Christians throughout history. They are not doing that now are they? There will be a point when even this group are willing to talk and we need to be ready to do that. Meanwhile I would really, really rather have someone who wants peace to set the agenda for us than those - and there really are some warmongers amongst the Tories - who think bombing is the answer to everything.

Lots of people think he came out of the Neil interview a lot better than Mayhem.
Strange that they often preface that comment with "I usually have no time for Corbyn, but....."

What 'verbal attack', Annie?

I have read the transcript of Corbyn's speech. Is pointing out that 'experts'over the years have made a connection between foreign policy (not just ours but other countries' as well; 'wars our government has supported' is what he said, which implies that others had the same policy) and the the rise of radical Islam, a verbal attack?

Is saying that Labour would reverse the cuts to our frontline services (which responded so magnificently to the Manchester horror) a 'verbal attack'?

What else in what I thought was a very good speech could possibly be construed as a 'verbal attack'? Attending the vigil in Manchester? Praising the strength and decency of the British people in their response to a dreadful situation? Condemning the perpetrators of terrorism?

I haven't admired his handling of 'opposition' in general, in fact, I think he's been pathetic, but I think this speech was masterly. And a vote winner.

Why GG? Why what AB? It's difficult to know what your are referring to as I am so programmed to your trashing of just one person - have you started on me today too?

Good post, trisher.
We are no longer on the highest alert here. It was downgraded half an hour ago.

Ok first of all you have to look at the reality of the situation and not accept whatever propaganda you are currently being fed by the government who really love distracting you from the problems of life by initiating a feeling that we are constantly under threat from someone ( they use the word 'war' to convey this- so we had the war against communism, the war against the IRA, the war against drugs and now the war against ISIS)
ISIS are a small group of extremists who do indeed believe in a Caliphate with Sharia Law but actually have very little support even from predominantly Muslim states (the nearest two to this being Iran and Saudi Arabia who hate each other because they are different types of Muslims).
So why are there bombs here? Because ISIS have been very successful in recruiting to their ranks disgruntled western Muslims who are willing to act in this country not necessarily because they see a time of a Caliphate being established but because they believe the British are pursuing anti-Muslim polices in the Middle East. Stop interfering, withdraw troops and the numbers of Muslims recruited would drop. They wouldn't disappear completely of course but the reasons for recruitment would go. Then only engage with the Middle East in an advisory capacity and wait to see how they deal with ISIS. As I have said not many Muslim countries want a Caliphate and those who apply Sharia law are already at odds with each other.

Guardian thinks it was electioneering.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/26/may-puts-manchester-bombing-at-heart-of-election-with-attack-on-corbyn

You don't post the truth, Annie. You post your opinions.

That's correct. Welshwife.

I think Jen was quoting a police officer making the remark about rocketing crime Annie - at least that is how I read it.

Oh I do Niggly, I do ? happens every day.

Critcism of the Tories is constructive critcism, critcism of Corbyn,McDonald ,Abbot and the weak shadow cabinet is hate and bile .

I use to critcise Cammeron and never got the verbal abuse from Tory supports I now have from the far left for critcising Corbyn And I only post the truth , never rely on biased blogs

Jen, if people are not reporting crimes how do you know crimes are increasing?

Trisher, can you explain how anyone talks to or interacts with IS?

No Jen, May did not make a speech attacking Corbyn, she was disagreeing with his verbal attack on Thursday , big difference. Only two did electioneering, Nutall and Corbyn

GracesGran - perhaps I shouldn't have used the "usual suspects" phrase and I apologise if it caused offence

Trisher - whilst I agree that talking to people is the preferred way to deal with terrorism, some just don't want to talk. How do you propose we talk to ISIS - they have only one demand - a total caliphate over the world where everyone is subject to their version of Islam and Sharia law. Who do you suggest we send to talk to them - because I guarantee the next picture we see of that person will be of them on their knees in front of a man with a big knife.

By the way, Mayhem made a speech at the end of the G7 summit attacking Corbyn.
That was Tory party electioneering.

" How can Theresa May possibly have thought, with events going on around the world and close to home that we didn't need your unit and its dogs?

X: You'd have to ask her that. We were made redundant 2 years ago, but I still have friends in the job and they are reaching breaking point, more and more work and no support, trying to do their best while being labelled lazy or incompetent because they simply can't possibly deal with every job immediately!

My old force attends around 2000 incidents every 24 hours, 7 days a week. You can add another 3500 telephone enquiries to that each day.

One very busy town near me puts out 8-10 cops per 10-hour shift. That used to be twenty-five per 8-hour shift. The paperwork and jobs have doubled since then.

Don't believe the politicians. Crime is rocketing - people have just got to the stage of not bothering to report it."

At least people on here who disagree with Labour policies refrain for calling Jeremy Corbyn and his team idiotic childish names. Surely most of us left cat calling behind us when we left school and entered th world of adults; but perhaps there is a grown up reason for doing this which I and others are unaware?!
Roses, you and I know very well that any differences of opinion other than that of the far left will be greeted with sneers, innuendo, insults (as annie knows so well!) and general unpleasantness. We all have our own thoughts on the political scene which would be nice to be able to air rationally and sensibly without rancour! but the truth is that we can't without a 'tin hat' which makes it not worth the hassle!

"After the terrible and tragic events in Manchester on Monday, Theresa May said she would ensure that the police would have the resources necessary to handle the challenge. What she omitted to mention, of course, was that she had made huge cuts – as Home Secretary – to the most important resource the police have.

Police officers. 20,000 of them.

And seven specially-trained police explosives dogs, because as far as she was concerned they weren’t needed and were therefore made redundant, along with their specially-trained handlers."

Oldwoman70 I fully support Corbyn's views on terrorism. What the terrorists do is wrong but their actions need to be understood and dealt with. To not talk to them or interact with them is inviting more bombs and killings. There have been many posts about terrorism and what it means. To sum them up:
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist
A terrorist to some is a freedom fighter to others
Governments including that of S. Africa and Israel are formed by terrorists.
The Peace agreement in N. Ireland only came about because members of the Labour Party had kept channels open and were willing to talk.
So when you post about Corbyn's views you could also ask yourself if you would be willing to allow bombings to continue simply because you were unwilling to talk about the issues?
I can't actually think of one case where terrorism has been completely defeated and bombing has stopped, only dialogue results in peace.

Not nice, Annie.

Why GG? You couldn't be described as nice because you enjoy popping in posts of insults even when you haven't been involved in an exchange of posts

Oldwoman70 well done for making your first post on a politics thread although I am not sure that calling people 'the usual suspects' - whoever you are referring to, will help you have a reasoned discussion. I assume you mean those who do not share your views but that actually doesn't mean they, or you, are wrong; it just means they don't share your views and you don't share theirs. Name calling of a group or an individual tends to fix you in peoples minds as not 'the person who holds those views' which may be interesting to others, but 'the person attacks verbally lest they be called to properly account for their views' but perhaps you are someone who cannot back their views but just expects others to agree with them simply because you have voiced them - it won't happen on here so, if I was you, I would at least start by being nice.

From the IFS interview:

The Conservatives continued focus on reducing immigration would, if affective, cause considerable economic damage and create additional problems for the public finances. The OBR has already downgraded its forecasts for receipts by £6bn by the end of this decade and rising thereafter due to lower expected net immigration. Meeting the conservatives commitment to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands would hit tax revenues by a similar amount again.

That additional public finance challenge is especially pertinent in the context of an ageing population which will push up pressures on health, pensions and social care over coming decades. On fairly conservative estimates these pressures could exceed 5% of national income or £100bn in current terms by the middle of this century.

Denying entry to young working immigrants would make that challenge all the harder to meet but so would continuing the triple lock on the state pension as Labour propose of the very similar double lock as the Conservatives propose.

Therefore a mistake just before a GE when the Opposition is promising the moon on a stick

I wonder if you could explain where I can obtain my 'moon on a stick'. I don't think this is the first time you have mentioned it but having read the LP manifesto - it isn't there. Are you being offered something I am not? That would definitely be unfair and possibly very rude