TOPIC: Where is Corbyn?

Glad we are a Tory City.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good for you.

Throbinhood wrote:
Labour Council very quiet - Tory MP very quiet

Probably hiding since the army are around.

seesaw50 wrote:
Tory MP, the Prime Minister is attending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh he`ll be well against any type of flooding

He probably thinks it would be a bit offensive coming up here and putting a hard hat on, and wallowing in people's misery, just for a photo opportunity. It may well be that he's finding out from his MPs up here what the situation is and will be making a properly informed statement soon about flood defences and such. Maybe he feels it would be in bad taste for him to be starting a huge public row while people are still trying to clean up after a major disaster. Or just maybe he's trying to find out what he can do to help, rather than gobbing off.

I really don't know.

Or maybe he's gone to ask the French for help bombing some pointless rivers somewhere, I'm sure they'll help as Dave's doing something similar for them.

Possibly immobilising an army of refugees/immigrants to deal with the aftermath as we speak...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Throbinhood wrote:

He isn't. Liz Truss is. He's the Floods Minister.

Moorlad wrote: Not what they called him today that`s why I said it!!!

Oh, sorry.

Actually, I suppose technically they might be right, he is a minister in the department for environment, food and rural affairs.

Throbinhood wrote: Immobilising or mobilising?

Imagine being a northerner and also being a Tory a*se licker. Embarrassing.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

loser wrote:

Imagine you trying to pull me up on my grammar. You horrible socialist dog.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Moorlad wrote: Or maybe he just doesn't care and can't be bothered travelling all that way.

Northumbrian wrote:
So you think that because pig shagger is travelling a long way, he cares?

"Our hearts go out to the hundreds of people whose homes have been flooded due to Storm Desmond. It is inspirational to see the way that communities have pulled together to help each other, as well as the essential role played our brave emergency services.
In due course we will assess what more the government could have done in terms of flood defences or resources for our emergency services."

Jeremy has put on Facebook, which seems like Moorlad wasn't far off the mark. He's going to take in all the facts, and try and come up with a solution, so that it doesn't happen again, rather than rock up for a photoshoot that changes absolutely nothing.

Maybe he's preparing his anti war speech which he is giving to his Marxist mates this week,or he might be meeting up with his fellow IRA loving commie Ken Livingstone who thinks the Muslim London bombers are martyrs.

Bluewest wrote:
He's at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris.

More greenhouse gas emissions

Throbinhood wrote: That's all well and good, but really sit back and think about it. Being a northerner, and being a Tory a*se licker. Embarrassing for you, hilarious for any other self-respecting northerner.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Not to mention the fact that Cameron f*cks dead pigs. Lol.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

You are a deluded individual, you really have sold your country out thinking that a terrorist sympathiser is better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes our great MP, The homophobic, Racist and sexist leader who speaks for the people of Carlisle, all because he's a two faced [censored]

Throbinhood wrote:
Aye, Corbyn backing Mandela while Thatcher was calling him a "grubby little terrorist" was a disgrace.

I've first hand experience of his terrorist friends in Ulster. So don't pull that old chestnut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who?

Let's put it this way, I spent 2 1/2 years in Londonderry. Now since you seem to be the expert on the troubles I'm sure you can think up a couple of names.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Paisley?

This has to go down as one of the most ridiculous posts ever. It matters not who turns up or doesn't turn up, or who shags pigs or doesn't shag pigs, or who is or isn't a terrorist sympathiser, or who spent time in Londonderry or who stayed at home. Lord lucan could have turned up riding shergar, if you get the highest and most concentrated spell of rainfall ever recorded it would make no difference, there will be floods and a mess. Were the defences good enough? Maybe, maybe not, whatever you do, in the end all you are doing is moving the water/problem somewhere else. When you have a junction of three rivers bringing flood water from as far away as kirkby stephen and everywhere in between, the result is inevitable. So who's to blame? In truth, nobody, or everybody if global warming is the cause. In essence, the childish political sniping on this issue is just that, childish. Direct your concern towards the poor beggars who are flooded out of their homes for god knows how long and at god knows what cost personally and financially.

cufcmike wrote: Nope... I'm just presenting the other side of the argument to balance it up. It shows how ridiculously biased this messageboard is when a man who bothers to travel to see it with his own eyes gets slagged off... and the man that stays in his nice cosy office and releases a press statement gets praised. I can't help feeling that had they worked for the opposite party the views would have been very different... if Corbyn had visited the area and Cameron had stayed down south there would be rage on this messageboard. the reality is that both see this as a political opportunity... Cameron has just stolen Corbyn's thunder by actually travelling to the north... so Jeremy has to make the utterly predictable moral stand, pretending it's somehow better not to see it with your own eyes. The other reality is that there is a very high chance that neither leader will put a solution in place that can cope with that level of flooding. As said above it doesn't really matter who turns up and who doesn't... they are both playing the political game on this issue. If I had to choose a side I would choose the bloke who has seen it himself though... at least he made the effort, even if it is a token effort.

Bruntonpasty wrote: Hit the nail on the head there... great post.

Corbyn probably on the the picket line with the Don't Bomb Syria clown's.....

This thread was started by a Tory supporter - people responded. Away with you and your laughable claims of bias and needing balance Northumbrian, Labour folk were only responding to right wing drivel!

pensionerblue wrote:
Yes it's disgusting that some people want innocent people to not be murdered for no reason. what a bunch of "clown's"!

deeksme wrote: There you go again Deeks... supporting a political party like it's a football team... Labour folk When will you realise that they are all as bad as each other? You just need to see who is the least crap just before an election and vote for them... instead of supporting and backing everything the red party says, just because they are the red party and you support the red party... just like your dad supported the red party.

deeksme wrote: What about the innocent people being murdered by ISIL? If we do nothing then we are basically murdering them too. Or are you happy to ignore those innocent civilians already being beheaded and nailed to crosses in Syria. Doing nothing will effectively give ISIL free reign to keep on murdering civilians in the area. Or don't those innocent civilians count?

Northumbrian wrote:
Isn't it a difficult decision, thankfully one we don't have to make, and what we vote for politicians for. I watched parts of the debate last week and there were excellent contributions on both sides, and there were some very good points made by both sides too. On the whole it looks as if Parliament came to the right decision, but then I thought that with the Iraq war at the time too.

Northumbrian wrote:
So....we should bomb every single place in the world where there is persecution?
When do we start bombing Israel then? Or China?

deeksme wrote:
Or indeed ourselves.

deeksme wrote: That's a total cop out Deeks.... it's not just persecution... it is mass murder going on right in front of our eyes. And it is the same country where you are saying bombing would kill civilians.... I'd be willing to wager bombing would kill a lot less civilians than ISIL... yet you are happy to turn a blind eye to that.... What if bombing would actually reduce the net number of innocent civilians killed? Would you support it then? or are you just using the innocent civilian deaths as a stick to beat the powers that be? I hate the fact that we have to get involved again in military action... but sometimes that is the lesser of two evils. Sitting on our hands and protesting won't do the people of Syria any good on this occasion. ISIL can't be negotiated with... there is no other answer... other to ignore them and hope they go away... which effectively condemns thousands of people in Syria to die at their hands.

It's all very well sitting on your politically correct high-horse saying bombing is wrong... but what are your practical solutions to prevent those innocent civilians being murdered currently? I fully expect another evasive answer.

Assad's regime has killed more civilians than ISIL, and continue to do so. They'll carry on doing that when we stop bombing ISIL too. This is not purely about looking after those civilians in Syria, but also about their capability around the world. ISIL are repugnant and need to be wiped off the face of the earth, there is no doubt about that, is this the way to go about it? I don't know, but on balance if we are carrying out strikes in Iraq, why stop at a border they don't even recognise.

I think we've got no choice but to do what we're doing, but I won't be at all surprised if it doesn't work.

Moorlad wrote: Yes that is true... I'm pretty much of the same opinion as you on this one Moorlad. It is a very difficult situation. I do get the feeling people are piling on this issue for purely political reasons though... ignoring the facts about what is happening and making it sound like the bullying west are bombing poor little innocent Syria... as if its a war between them and us. It is a very complicated situation with many sides involved.... People bleating on about civilians dying in the bombings or the fact that it will make us a target for terrorism are missing two very important points... 1) Civilians are already dying in large numbers at the hands of those we will bomb and 2) we are already a target for ISIL as we are already bombing them in Iraq... are they going to be extra mad at us for bombing them in two places?

Still I guess we have to accept that Pippa, Lotte and Peregrine need a new cause to champion now that fox hunting has been banned.

I think the truth is, mate, we'd be a target anyway. Anybody who doesn't conform to their warped idea of religion seems to be fair game judging by what they do to their own people. I still don't know whether even a massive and concentrated bombing campaign would sort them, but I doubt it. They will end up elsewhere with different leaders and a different name, religious maniacs, of whatever creed, are impossible to stop.

If we aren't part of the bombing campaign I think we look pretty stupid, just stopping at the border was never a decent option really. I really think Corbyn was wrong on this, and his position, unfortunately, is where complete pacifism is absolutely certain to lead. If you aren't prepared to stand up for those weaker than yourself, as a country, what is the point of trying to persuade the rest of the world you are a world power.

I realise there are horrible consequences of bombing, and especially if we're seen to be with Russia who are indiscriminate and France who are incapable. But that is why we have to be there.

Moorlad wrote:
The UN estimated the number of dead after the Assad repressions between 8 & 15 thousand people. At that point the US decided to intervene to support moderate rebels, the current death toll is estimated by UNHCR in Damascus to be 400000. Its not complicated, the US supported by Britain, France and numerous other countries including God forbid Denmark and Poland is fighting a war against the democratically elected Government of Syria. In one month of action the Russians killed more than 10 times the number of ISIS terrorists that Britain and the US killed in 2 years, how is that possible?
This is John McCain in 2013 meeting Isis
www.nowtheendbegins.com/exposed-isis-roa...-john-mccain-photos/

Wikipedia France and Britain providing lethal aid and intelligence to rebel groups in Syria fighting against the Government
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvemen...the_Syrian_Civil_War

BBC reports vital air strikes against ISIS oil supplies. Only unfortunately we hit an an oilfield previously destroyed
www.sott.net/article/307853-Propaganda-a...ted-syrian-oil-field


British and American forces attack Syrian army and Syrian President. There is no war on Isis, there is no war against terrorists, these people are funded and armed and trained by the Us and the coalition forces and they are fighting against the President of Syria. That, that decision has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of refugees is of no importance to Cameron
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-...regime-a6762956.html

My question is:

Why do we need to be a world power now the empire has gone?

No idea.

I knew Markovitch would be along any minute with some dodgy links to wikipedia and some incredibly biased conspiracy theory websites. I wouldn't bother reading them... I'll summarise.... USA/UK = responsible for every death in the middle east ever in someway.... oh and our Marxist brother also praises the Russian's obviously.