Corbyn about to be sectioned methinks?

[Worthingite]

Here's another.

In a recent unofficial interview with the current labour party leader jeremy corbyn Mr corbyn told UK news 24 that the Britain needs more Muslim refugees as he criticized David Cameron for not doing so calling on him to open the border for the calais migrants, and that comes in a time where europe is facing the worst refugee crisis since the the world war 2, adding to that the recent growing reports of asylum seekers abusing women all over the continent from Finland to Germany where the latest sexual assaults on women in cologne Germany sparked outrage across the country and Europe aimed a growing fear of the open door policy.
https://uknews24blog.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/jeremy-corbyn-we-need-more-muslim-refugees/

Wow. Was that written by HB&B

 

[BadFish]

Wow. Was that written by HB&B

I could only see one fullstop so maybe it was a Pretty Pink Fairy one sentence special?

 

[BadFish]

Here's another.

In a recent unofficial interview with the current labour party leader jeremy corbyn Mr corbyn told UK news 24 that the Britain needs more Muslim refugees as he criticized David Cameron for not doing so calling on him to open the border for the calais migrants, and that comes in a time where europe is facing the worst refugee crisis since the the world war 2, adding to that the recent growing reports of asylum seekers abusing women all over the continent from Finland to Germany where the latest sexual assaults on women in cologne Germany sparked outrage across the country and Europe aimed a growing fear of the open door policy.
https://uknews24blog.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/jeremy-corbyn-we-need-more-muslim-refugees/

Is this what he actually said or is this poorly written and unreferenced blog actually using this more balanced article from last year as its base?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...refugee-crisis-britain-is-being-10483220.html

 

[W.C.]

Here's another.

In a recent unofficial interview with the current labour party leader jeremy corbyn Mr corbyn told UK news 24 that the Britain needs more Muslim refugees as he criticized David Cameron for not doing so calling on him to open the border for the calais migrants, and that comes in a time where europe is facing the worst refugee crisis since the the world war 2, adding to that the recent growing reports of asylum seekers abusing women all over the continent from Finland to Germany where the latest sexual assaults on women in cologne Germany sparked outrage across the country and Europe aimed a growing fear of the open door policy.
https://uknews24blog.wordpress.com/2016/01/16/jeremy-corbyn-we-need-more-muslim-refugees/

I'm sorry but is this the kind of place that you dredge 'news' up from? A badly written blog with 3 posts to it's name? Did you write it yourself?

 

[London Irish]

The nuclear stuff is just a national vanity that has no practical military application. Total waste of money when we cant afford to fund our hospitals. Those who accuse Corbyn of being old fashioned are themselves stuck in the 1950s Cold War era. Russia is not an enemy, their businessmen are too busy swanning around buying up London mansions. Who else is there? N Korea? If S Korea dont bother with nuclear weapons, we're fine. Isis? well France's nuclear weapons did Paris a fat lot of good recently

 

[Mutts Nuts]

The politician that just keeps on connecting with the people that the Labour Party abandoned yonks ago. Finally a true alternative vision to voting Tory or various shades of Tory Lite.

Totally agree, we now require a Margaret Thatcher with a Norman Tebbit side kick to even up the balance and sort this mess out

 

[pastafarian]

The nuclear stuff is just a national vanity that has no practical military application. Total waste of money when we cant afford to fund our hospitals.

This is a ridiculous standpoint worthy of idiotic militant wishy washy left wing rubbish bullcrap rhetoric that you hear from uninformed students.

Even if trident was scrapped the money involved would still remain in the defence budget. Corbyn has acknowledged this himself.Not even he wants to commit political suicide and advocate a huge cut in defence spending…….its odd some of his supporters go against him and want defence money moved to other departments like the NHS.

If you want to find extra money available to fund the NHS why not clamp down thoroughly and harshly on the health tourists or do you wish to maintain an International Health Service.

I seem to remember a politician recently who highlighted those foreigners coming to the UK specifically to get free HIV drugs at a huge cost to the NHS……he was told to shut up……..doesnt stop the issue though does it

 

[pastafarian]

I listened to Corbyn put his case forward against nuclear weapons and say USA nuclear capability did not stop the 9/11 attacks so it doesn’t act as a deterrent.

How utterly childlike do you have to be in your cloud cuckoo land pacifist world view to not understand the basics that a NUCLEAR deterrent has never been regarded as a TERRORIST deterrent EVER. Doesn’t matter if you mention 9/11, 7/7, Lockerbie, Mumbai , Harrods, Grand Hotel, Beslan School or Paris this has never been the case.

When was it that anyone seriously started to believe this was actually a thing?
Or is it just a new Corbyn and his supporters thing?

 

[glasfryn]

Where the hell did you read that? I think you've been had by the scaremongers! One missile will not kill all in the UK. If the situation escalated then we might be killed by other missiles but one will not be enough.
.

watch some of the info films
please do not treat everyone who disagree's with you as an idiot
one small nuclear head will eventually kill everyone, not directly but from radiation sickness, what the **** have you been reading?

 

[heathgate]

watch some of the info films
please do not treat everyone who disagree's with you as an idiot
one small nuclear head will eventually kill everyone, not directly but from radiation sickness, what the **** have you been reading?

Garbage....one nuclear explosion would not even kill everyone in Brighton...get a grip, this isn't 1960 you know.

 

[Seagull27]

I listened to Corbyn put his case forward against nuclear weapons and say USA nuclear capability did not stop the 9/11 attacks so it doesn’t act as a deterrent.

How utterly childlike do you have to be in your cloud cuckoo land pacifist world view to not understand the basics that a NUCLEAR deterrent has never been regarded as a TERRORIST deterrent EVER. Doesn’t matter if you mention 9/11, 7/7, Lockerbie, Mumbai , Harrods, Grand Hotel, Beslan School or Paris this has never been the case.

When was it that anyone seriously started to believe this was actually a thing?
Or is it just a new Corbyn and his supporters thing?

We better bloody well hope that terrorists never get access to nuclear weapons then.

 

[BeardyChops]

This is a ridiculous standpoint worthy of idiotic militant wishy washy left wing rubbish bullcrap rhetoric that you hear from uninformed students.

Even if trident was scrapped the money involved would still remain in the defence budget. Corbyn has acknowledged this himself.Not even he wants to commit political suicide and advocate a huge cut in defence spending…….its odd some of his supporters go against him and want defence money moved to other departments like the NHS.

If you want to find extra money available to fund the NHS why not clamp down thoroughly and harshly on the health tourists or do you wish to maintain an International Health Service.

I seem to remember a politician recently who highlighted those foreigners coming to the UK specifically to get free HIV drugs at a huge cost to the NHS……he was told to shut up……..doesnt stop the issue though does it

I listened to Corbyn put his case forward against nuclear weapons and say USA nuclear capability did not stop the 9/11 attacks so it doesn’t act as a deterrent.

How utterly childlike do you have to be in your cloud cuckoo land pacifist world view to not understand the basics that a NUCLEAR deterrent has never been regarded as a TERRORIST deterrent EVER. Doesn’t matter if you mention 9/11, 7/7, Lockerbie, Mumbai , Harrods, Grand Hotel, Beslan School or Paris this has never been the case.

When was it that anyone seriously started to believe this was actually a thing?
Or is it just a new Corbyn and his supporters thing?

Put your two comments together, and I think you are arguing a good case (even if you didn't intend to). The *real* threat is not something that nuclear deterrents can prevent. The clear, present, and demonstrated threat is from terrorist organisations. Should we cancel the renewal of trident, and keep the money in the defence budget, then we would have far greater resources to defend ourselves against actions such as you reference. Additionally, the defence budget may become more controllable since we may be not subjected to the unknown costs that might arise during the trident renewal process.

As for the NHS snipe, well that's a whole different story.

 

[drew]

To be honest any concept of nuclear weapons, especially Trident, is insane. Corbyn by saying just leave the warheads off is fantastic, after all aren't these designed never to be used?

Fact is that nuclear weapons are not a concept. The knowledge to build them cannot be erased. Of course it would be brilliant if you could eradicate that knowledge and all sides agreed to get rid of their arsenal.

As for the deterrent capabilities, look at the middle east. It is widely believed that Israel have nuclear capability (possibly since 1966). They have never admitted or denied it. That may well be, although can't be proved, a factor in that they haven't been attacked by some of the arab states!

 

[BeardyChops]

Garbage....one nuclear explosion would not even kill everyone in Brighton...get a grip, this isn't 1960 you know.

Fair point.
Should London be subjected to the worse case currently possible, it might get a bit 'uncomfortable' though.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?...2&hob_opt=1&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=47553&ff=52&zm=8

 

[drew]

Put your two comments together, and I think you are arguing a good case (even if you didn't intend to). The *real* threat is not something that nuclear deterrents can prevent. The clear, present, and demonstrated threat is from terrorist organisations. Should we cancel the renewal of trident, and keep the money in the defence budget, then we would have far greater resources to defend ourselves against actions such as you reference. Additionally, the defence budget may become more controllable since we may be not subjected to the unknown costs that might arise during the trident renewal process.

As for the NHS snipe, well that's a whole different story.

Since when was the defence budget out of control? You're introducing an element that doesn't currently exist to support your argument.

I don't think anyone will disagree that the immediate threat is from terrorism which I believe is under the remit of intelligence services and the Police, not the military. Trident is a long term deterrent for about 30 years. We don't know what issues the world will face in that time. We could of course scrap trident, cross our fingers and hope nothing threatens the national security. Good luck with that approach.

 

[Mellotron]

Really? What people is he 'connecting' with exactly? The illegal immigrants? The CND? The Commies? Daesh? Really would like to know, he has no connection with me whatsoever.

Insane amounts of young people are getting behind Corbyn, along with returning Labour voters.

 

[sahel]

This is a ridiculous standpoint worthy of idiotic militant wishy washy left wing rubbish bullcrap rhetoric that you hear from uninformed students.

Even if trident was scrapped the money involved would still remain in the defence budget. Corbyn has acknowledged this himself.Not even he wants to commit political suicide and advocate a huge cut in defence spending…….its odd some of his supporters go against him and want defence money moved to other departments like the NHS.

If you want to find extra money available to fund the NHS why not clamp down thoroughly and harshly on the health tourists or do you wish to maintain an International Health Service.

I seem to remember a politician recently who highlighted those foreigners coming to the UK specifically to get free HIV drugs at a huge cost to the NHS……he was told to shut up……..doesnt stop the issue though does it

Do you really think the funding issues around the NHS would be solved by clamping down on "health tourists"?. How ridiculous! You should educate yourself a bit before launching into an ignorant tirade.

 

[glasfryn]

Garbage....one nuclear explosion would not even kill everyone in Brighton...get a grip, this isn't 1960 you know.

the explosion would'nt but the radiation sickness would eventually

 

[BeardyChops]

Since when was the defence budget out of control? You're introducing an element that doesn't currently exist to support your argument.

I don't think anyone will disagree that the immediate threat is from terrorism which I believe is under the remit of intelligence services and the Police, not the military. Trident is a long term deterrent for about 30 years. We don't know what issues the world will face in that time. We could of course scrap trident, cross our fingers and hope nothing threatens the national security. Good luck with that approach.

It may not become uncontrollable, but it certainly has to be adjusted to cater for costs not originally catered for. Reducing the effects of capex brings in a degree of controllability.
The money allocated for Trident appears to have needed an increase. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-estimates-calculations-suggest-a6708126.html

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong, but aren't the intelligence services are funded from the SIA, which I believe has it's budget set by the Strategic Defence and Security Review? ie the same body that allocates money to Trident? I hope the government doesnt ring defence budgets according to which building the procurement staff sit in ;-)

As for the future, well - thats the problem. If we could see whats going to happen, we could tell where best to spend the money. As it is, we have to allocate on perceived risks.

 

[drew]

Fair point.
Should London be subjected to the worse case currently possible, it might get a bit 'uncomfortable' though.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?...2&hob_opt=1&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=47553&ff=52&zm=8

That shows the blast radius for 100,000 kt bomb but the biggest ever built was only 50,000kt, the so called Tsar Bomb and only one of those was ever actually built and detonated in Russia.