National politics

[Hugo]

, I think your notion that "terrorists only seem to attack soft targets" is one of those oft-repeated clichés that isn't actually supported by empirical evidence (in the case of suicide bombers). Probably we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Those "oft repeated cliches not supported by empirical evidence"  where on earth to you get such information from?         Prior to the bombing in Manchester the Police forces had instructed their officers that they must go out in pairs.   Furthermore they were also ordered to change out of their uniforms and into civilian clothes prior to leaving the Police Station.      The reasons for that are obvious and the case of Lee Rigby is a prime example.
Fester's posting of his mother's situation really touched me and made me realise how fortunate I am to be living where I do and relatively free of those atrocities that we have seen all over Europe and the UK in recent times.

[BMD]

I think your notion that "terrorists only seem to attack soft targets" is one of those oft-repeated clichés that isn't actually supported by empirical evidence (in the case of suicide bombers).

Those "oft repeated cliches not supported by empirical evidence"  where on earth to you get such information from?

Thanks Hugo. All I meant was something very obvious and undeniable, namely that there are many shocking cases of terrorists attacking *non*-soft targets - both in the UK and abroad. Suicide bombings are favoured by extremist groups precisely because they can reach non-soft targets (the ultimate example would probably be the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon - the world's least "soft" target).

Every time terrorists attack a non-soft target, the blanket generalisation (and oft-repeated cliché) that "terrorists only seem to attack soft targets" is refuted.

I won't be responding to any more points in this thread, sorry.

[Fester]

I'm glad you won't be responding BMD, not because you're points aren't valid, they are..but because we'll just waste time going round in circles.
You see, I don't need to respond or refute all the individual points you make.... because I'm making different points. 
One of my points is regarding the fact that most terrorist attacks are not suicide bombers.  The 3 I quoted were mass shootings.
I can only assert that a very large number of those innocent victims would have been alive today if armed police were on hand to stop the attacks.
In fact, the attacks probably wouldn't have commenced at all, why take the risk? 

Please understand that I'd rather not live in a world where armed security is required to keep me safe.
But, those they are protecting me from would much rather you and I didn't live at all.

[Fester]

Ian, your synopsis of the Bradford riots is very selective, very narrow.
The flashpoint may well have originated at that pub, I wouldn't know, but the areas mentioned in that report had little or no riotous activity over the nights in question.
I do think that white youths in those areas certainly took the opportunity to create mischief and commit many crimes as the police resources were urgently deployed elsewhere.

I think the analysis that followed the riots was highly political in terms of 'misplaced correctness' so as not to offend or incite further trouble.
I'm sure that there are reams and reams of other sources of information and accounts regarding those horrific nights. But, many will vary depending on their authors motives.

You see the main areas of destruction were Manningham, Whetley Hill, Girlington and Lidget Green.
Areas I knew well, areas I grew up in. Areas my parents still live in, albeit separately.
The Thornton Road and Manchester Road areas (towards the City centre) were also deeply embroiled and were no go areas for several nights.

[Hugo]

Unfortunately, the world changed after the 9/11 attack and we have to be prepared to deal with these matters accordingly.    BMD has expressed an opinion and that is all it is, it's neither right or wrong just his opinion based on the unfortunate incident with his mother.
We are just going round and round in circles, but everyone is entitled to an opinion but we must remember that it is not the Police who are the enemy, they are just protecting us from those extremists who wish to do us harm
I'm not going to post anymore on this matter but instead I'm going to watch the 10K  race in Manchester on TV and hope that all those people who are watching it enjoy it and that we never ever see a repeat of the Boston Marathon in future.

[Ian]

Ian, your synopsis of the Bradford riots is very selective, very narrow.
The flashpoint may well have originated at that pub, I wouldn't know, but the areas mentioned in that report had little or no riotous activity over the nights in question.

I wasn't really attempting to analyse something about which I know comparatively little, F. What I was doing, I think, was twofold: I was concerned to show that apparently simple statements which may seem accurate

"Muslim (predominantly Pakistani) youths hell bent on causing destruction and injury."

are often too simplistic to tell the whole story, since it's well documented that the original fracas was started by white youths.  From personal experience I know just how incredibly difficult it is to determine who started what. And in the end it's probably not that important.  What does matter is that sufficient individuals felt sufficiently motivated to tear apart a community.

The other thing I was trying to do was establish that no matter how emotionally involved the onlookers become the solution to these events has never - historically - been violent repression. We may think the answer is brute force but I can't remember a single instance where that has worked against a populace.

Finally, I know you like to think that P90-toting police make us all feel safer but think about where mass shootings have occurred. The weapons used by the police are pretty indiscriminate in terms of killing power (accurate, I understand, up to 20 yards...) so bystanders stand as much chance of being hit as does the perpetrator. And most of the perpetrators are convinced being killed during their savage acts ensures a great life after death. So not a lot of incentive to stay low, then.

[Fester]

On the election debate, which I've kept out of, as I won't be voting...

Has anyone noticed that the polls have dramatically changed over the last 3 weeks?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39856354

Given the Brexit and Trump results which came as a shock to the pollsters,  I'm now expecting to see either a Labour win, or a much reduced Tory majority. 
Very, very uncomfortable and uncertain times ahead.

[Ian]

Very worrying indeed. And the polls got it utterly wrong last time.

[rhuddlan]

Might I make a suggestion? Rather than not bothering with going to vote, that people register for a postal vote .Then when they receive the paperwork if they cannot find someone to vote for, they can register their dissatisfaction by making a protest vote.
I personally feel that is a better option than simply not bothering to "go to vote". It just means putting an envelope through a nearby post box. You have to complete the paper " properly" see the link below..
The reason why I suggest this is because my parents who always voted reminded me of the efforts our predecessors had in getting the vote in the first place. I too think this remains true today.
You can still go to the polling booth and protest vote there if you prefer .
Protest voting the voting paper is different from spoiling the paper
It is with some hesitation that I make this comment as it seems people tend to take things a bit too personally here.
.For more information please see the attached link
http://www.votenone.org.uk/protest_votes_count.html

[Fester]

I foresee..... election chaos.... a very shaky coalition...... then a 2nd Brexit referendum.... which will come back with a narrow 'remain' majority.

That will just make things worse.

[Bosun]

I foresee..... election chaos.... a very shaky coalition...... then a 2nd Brexit referendum.... which will come back with a narrow 'remain' majority.

That will just make things worse.

You and your crystal balls......

[Fester]

Bosun, They're all useless, the lot of them, terrified of upsetting the City and the landowners. Who has the money has the power. They own the politicians. Was always thus and will always be thus. The middle classes get squeezed, the poor are screwed and the really rich avoid paying tax by paying top accountants to keep finding loopholes. It's a disgusting system. The best I can do is abstain from taking part. they're all liars prepared to say anything to win an election then deliver on nothing when in power.
Nothing really ever changes for the better. That is the reality.
Apart from that .... what lovely weather we've had lately.

[Bosun]

Fester, no-one can argue against that, but I would add that 99% of politicians are only in the game for self power and glory (I've met enough of the idiots to know) - except, and I truly believe this, except Corbyn. He is simply delusional. Kindly, well meaning - but delusional. Proven not least by the fact that he has IdiotAbott on his front bench. I've changed my hairstyle many times in 35 years but I've always utterly condemned terrorism and the perpetrators of atrocities no matter what hairstyle I had, even as a callow youth.

But, as you suggested earlier, the lunatics may well find themselves in charge of the asylum.....

Brexit, Trump and Labour? They say bad luck comes in threes, but what has the world done to deserve that toxic combination?

[Fester]

If Labour did manage to cobble together a win, absolute turmoil would ensue.

But a Tory win is only bad for you if you are young, or if you are old.... or if you are middle class, or out of work...... or in work, or disabled.... or if you are a fox! 

[Bosun]

I watched the May - Corbyn v Paxman 'debate' last night; Corbyn answered the audiences questions well and came across as a friendly amiable chap, most sincere and a remarkably good speaker, I was impressed - until Paxman began his bullying routine and Corbyn began to crumble under pressure when questioned on defence and security. May seemed more self assured and authoritative, if defensive about policies and her record. She stood up well to Paxman and to me, seemed the more 'statesman' like of the two.

I don't think there was much in it, Corbyn the more likable, May much more the statesman. The looser was Paxman, a sad pastiche of his former self, whose bullying manner did little to elicit more from either about their vision and policies for the future of the country, but tried desperately to pressurise them, seemingly as if he wanted them to give under pressure. It was May who weathered this the better because Paxman kept repeating the same question, to which May had a practiced answer.

Having always admired the man, I was most disappointed in Paxman, he should stick to travelogues in future. Last night may well have finished his career in current event broadcasting.