***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 10 *****
==========================================================
Continuing debate.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 6 Feb 16 at 18:11
|
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12118575/Jeremy-Corbyn-All-Calais-migrants-who-want-to-come-to-Britain-should-be-allowed-entry.html
This man Corbyn is a loon. Letting some in opens the door to ANY of the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in Europe to head to the U.K.'s welfare state.
|
>>This man Corbyn is a loon
I don't doubt it.
The meat of the article, however, is that anyone with a 'connection' (whatever that is) to the UK should be allowed to have their application 'processed' (ditto).
Presumably if they are undesirable or have insufficient grounds they would then be told to FO and a black mark next to their name for the future.
If they have reasonable cause to be allowed into the UK then where's the problem?
|
>> This man Corbyn is a loon. Letting some in opens the door to ANY of
>> the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in Europe to head to the U.K.'s welfare
>> state.
>>
We've already let in a few thousand already and for another 20,000 so in fairness the PM should be described as a loon, and every other PM that lets in asylum seekers, which is pretty much all of them.
|
>> We've already let in a few thousand already and for another 20,000 so in fairness the PM should be described as a loon, and every other PM that lets in asylum seekers, which is pretty much all of them.
None of you young chaps have heard of a dog in the manger, have you?
It's often a sensible thing to be, but it's got a mean selfish side that isn't good.
|
>>None of you young chaps have heard of a dog in the manger
It's probably a fair observation that a leader who treats foreigners like crap almost certainly treats his own public just as badly.
|
>> None of you young chaps have heard of a dog in the manger, have you?
>
I have yes.
|
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12118575/Jeremy-Corbyn-All-Calais-migrants-who-want-to-come-to-Britain-should-be-allowed-entry.html
>>
>> This man Corbyn is a loon. Letting some in opens the door to ANY of
>> the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in Europe to head to the U.K.'s welfare
>> state.
As Lygonos has already pointed out the headline doesn't summarise what Corbyn actually said. In fact it's fundamentally misleading. And I doubt that's an accident.
Immigration judges have already allowed a handful who have the suggested connection with UK AND are vulnerable through youth or illness to come here while their cases are considered. Government seems to be going along with that.
And the UK's 'welfare state' isn't exactly generous to those waiting for their asylum claims to be decided.
|
I found Corbyn a bit weak in Parliament the other day.Cameron gets away with to much in my opinion.The thing about Corbyn he is different,he travelled to Duinkerke seeing all the misery women and children in camps.Cameron is not a man of the people he never will be.Why the French are not doing more to sort the migrant problem out I don't follow.
The headlines will always lie about Corbyn ridicule him is the name of the game.
|
|
If many continental countries are feeling overwhelmed and are closing their borders, building fences etc, Corbyn seems to be a bit out of step with reality.
|
As I've mentioned before, the Telegraph, which has never represented the best qualities in the world of journalism (having a sensationalist streak), has a mindless vendetta against Corbyn and isn't above a bit of distortion of the truth.
Now, I don't doubt that Corbyn brings a lot of journalistic criticism upon himself. I have some sympathy for some of his ideas, but he's seen by the British public as an inept politician who will probably never shake off the "toothless trident" story. He is out of step with the security and other similar concerns widely held by the public.
I can't see him surviving for long as leader; if he does, he will take the Labour Party to abysmal depths with the electorate.
|
It was mentioned in the BBC news at ten this evening that there was a possibility that children were being used as Trojan horses by their families.
A difficult one, but that's what we employ politicians for.
|
|
Children don't get to calais on their own.
|
>> Children don't get to calais on their own.
Did you ever read The Silver Sword?
|
>> this is not 1940
It's a displaced person crisis on a scale last seen in WW2 and aftermath. Obviously world has changed but Silver Sword scenario of sibling etc groups moving isn't that far from the mark.
|
>> >> this is not 1940
>>
>> It's a displaced person crisis on a scale last seen in WW2 and aftermath. Obviously
>> world has changed but Silver Sword scenario of sibling etc groups moving isn't that far
>> from the mark.
>>
In scale, yes, in character its totally different in 1940 there was nowhere safe for refugee children in mainland Europe. Today, as has been said many times before, refugees at Calais have travelled at least several hundred miles through several safe, first world, countries with no fear of persecution before they get to Calais.
I fully support the UK doing its share, which is probably more than it is doing, but it is surely naive to think that the reasons for most refugees at Calais having ignored every other country they have passed through in a single minded desire to reach the UK are anything other than economic.
|
>> >> this is not 1940
>>
>> It's a displaced person crisis on a scale last seen in WW2 and aftermath. Obviously
>> world has changed but Silver Sword scenario of sibling etc groups moving isn't that far
>> from the mark.
Its a long long way off the mark, Europe was in turmoil, resistance groups flourished, people were sheltered from the occupying forces, it was turmoil and chaos, 1940 in the middle of war for gods sake.
|
>> Its a long long way off the mark, Europe was in turmoil, resistance groups flourished,
>> people were sheltered from the occupying forces, it was turmoil and chaos, 1940 in the
>> middle of war for gods sake.
Much of the activity in The Silver Sword, including the climax of the story, is post May 45. While the Balicki family are fictional their story is based on real events.
If groups of children led by their elders could move around war torn Europe living off their wits, charity etc then doing so in the 21st Century would be straightforward.
|
So Europe wasn't in chaos in 1945?
21st century straightforward?
Sensible conversation on this leg of the subject ends here I think
|
>> So Europe wasn't in chaos in 1945?
>>
>> 21st century straightforward?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sensible conversation on this leg of the subject ends here I think
Where did I say it wasn't. Simply pointed out that main activity in book mentioned was in 45. Different sort of chaos to your suggested time frame of 1940 but chaos nonetheless.
My point remains that if displaced minors could move around Europe under own steam under those conditions it's not impossible now.
You seemed to suggest yesterday that it was.
|
>> My point remains that if displaced minors could move around Europe under own steam under
>> those conditions it's not impossible now.
>>
>> You seemed to suggest yesterday that it was.
And now you are making stuff up to try and make it fit.
|
>> And now you are making stuff up to try and make it fit.
You posted:
Children don't get to calais on their own.
I suggested there were precedents for (groups of) children escaping conflict and its aftermath of which which the events behind Ian Serrailier's story were one.
That's all.
|
>> I suggested there were precedents for (groups of) children escaping conflict and its aftermath of
>> which which the events behind Ian Serrailier's story were one.
>>
>> That's all.
You are mad. Even in your story example they never made it to Calais
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 25 Jan 16 at 22:51
|
>> You are mad. Even in your story example they never made it to Calais
:-)
|
|
Whatever the reason they are there someone needs to help those children in the name of humanity. Too much talking, not enough doing.
|
>> Whatever the reason they are there someone needs to help those children in the name
>> of humanity. Too much talking, not enough doing.
They are in France. France is a modern civilised safe country, with appropriate child support and protection laws. To get to France they passed through many similar countries.
Not our problem.
|
>> They are in France. France is a modern civilised safe country, with appropriate child support
>> and protection laws. To get to France they passed through many similar countries.
>>
>> Not our problem.
>>
That is absolutely correct.
Why does France permit this? Because the people concerned wish to go somewhere else.
|
>> Why does France permit this?
>>
Because France does not want them and is keen to export the problem.
|
|
No its not "our problem" but it certainly is the children's problem. Someone need to help them and help them soon. Sometimes you have to do something even though its not your problem.
|
>> Sometimes you have to do something even though its
>> not your problem.
That's true, but best find a way to do it without actually growing the problem. That's the bit of thinking that's usually missed out.
|
|
TBH? its being overhyped, the problem of "children" is not as great as its made out.
|
|
That's good to know. Should be easily resolved then at little cost.
|
|
have you actually seen what the problem is and needs to be resolved?
|
All I know is that there are a considerable number of refugee children in Europe who have no parents and who need a secure and stable environment in which to grow up. Europe is quite capable of doing this and the United Kingdom is part of Europe and can help.
You maintain that it is a a comparatively small problem and if it is then all the more reason why the UK should act and act quickly.
|
>> All I know is that there are a considerable number of refugee children in Europe
>> who have no parents and who need a secure and stable environment in which to
>> grow up.
I dont believe there is a considerable number of refugee children who have no parents. Now someone somewhere may want us to believe that, or is attempting to to portray that, but in reality considerable numbers of children don't up sticks and find their way to Europe on their own, specially from where they purportedly came from. It requires far too much money, guile knowledge and support to do so.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 25 Jan 16 at 10:39
|
"I dont believe there is a considerable number of refugee children who have no parents."
If true that would be good news. Since there are undoubtedly some they will be easy to help at little effort or cost.
|
>> "I dont believe there is a considerable number of refugee children who have no parents."
>>
>>
>> If true that would be good news. Since there are undoubtedly some they will be
>> easy to help at little effort or cost.
Indeed, easily handled in mainland europe then, where they presently reside.
|
>> You maintain that it is a a comparatively small problem and if it is then
>> all the more reason why the UK should act and act quickly.
>>
Yes.... then watch the small problem become an absolutely huge one.
Have you learnt nothing from Frau Merkel's mistake?
|
>> TBH? its being overhyped, the problem of "children" is not as great as its made
>> out.
>>
It makes good press for the caring Government tho. To be seen to be doing something that most would approve.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Mon 25 Jan 16 at 09:56
|
The UK is talking about taking children from the camps direct, e.g. Turkey. That means they have not travelled across Europe to get to Calais.
I can see there could be a danger a parent would try to follow the child but safeguards could be put in place.
|
The government is actively considering admitting 3,000 of the unaccompanied refugee children on a humanitarian basis already in Europe in addition to the 20,000 it has already agree to admit directly from Turkish refugee camps.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35395464
|
You seriously think that 26k refugee children will be settled int he UK? I'll lay a stake in the ground now, and say by the time 5 years has passed, it didn't happen.
I dont even think there are 26k genuine unaccompanied or unsponsored refugee children.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 25 Jan 16 at 12:08
|
>> I dont even think there are 26k genuine unaccompanied or unsponsored refugee children.
The government has already committed to take 20,000 people from the camps on Syrian borders over five years. Don't think these are just children - IIRC emphasis was on family groups. The further 3k unaccompanied children seems to be a number that cropped up over the weekend, possibly part of an interview with Justine Greening, Overseas Development Minister.
There are some children in the French camps who already have family in the UK. The Immigration Tribunal has ruled that some of these should come to UK while their asylum applications are considered.
Not clear if they are part of the 3k mentioned above.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 25 Jan 16 at 12:32
|
|
The 20,000 are families, not just children.
|
>> The 20,000 are families, not just children.
still wont happen.
|
You can see what the problem is here.
The best place for a child is with its parents.
An unaccompanied child should be looked after.
So you have a policy that unaccompanied children will be offered homes in the UK. Then the parents pop up, so naturally you welcome the parents too. What possible safeguard could you have?
If that was it then it would be fine, but everybody except Angela Merkel will probably have worked out that there will suddenly be a lot more unaccompanied children looking for a home.
Not to say that I wouldn't do the same. If someone wants to enter the EU and there are hurdles to jump, then they will work out the way to do it.
Nor is that the end of it. It does nothing to solve the problems in the countries of origin, which will continue to produce a continuous stream of migrants for as long as those problems exist.
The adage 'charity begins at home' has a meaning beyond the obvious.
|
|
That article is Bolleux. Firstly is because its that vacuous obnoxious tart Katie Hopkins, and secondly highlighting anyone like this, albeit accidentally, is rather too much like being forced to wear a star of david sewn on your clothes.
|
>> That article is Bolleux. Firstly is because its that vacuous obnoxious tart Katie Hopkins, and
>> secondly highlighting anyone like this, albeit accidentally, is rather too much like being forced to
>> wear a star of david sewn on your clothes.
I agree with Zeddo!!
Going for a lie down.......
|
|
There should be an equivalent of Godwin's Law for the first mention of Katie Hopkins in a thread about foreigners.
|
"There should be an equivalent of Godwin's Law."
Or Haywain's Corollary - i.e. that some wag will cry 'racist'.
|
|
I don't deny there is a problem with migration, but some of the press and other organisations are sounding like the emotional blackmail heard in so called charity adverts whose main aim seems to be supporting senior staff lifestyles.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 09:04
|
Ever wondered why that seems to happen to you a lot? Because most people never hear it.
Curious.
|
>>highlighting anyone like this, albeit accidentally, is rather too much like being forced to wear
>>a star of david sewn on your clothes.
Seriously???
A regime groups together all Jews in ghetto and makes them live a substandard existence, and forces them to wear a Star of David as a prelude to killing the lot of them.
And you equate to that a compassionate society that gives charity to refugees, and in order to show their entitlement to said charity they wear a wristband (which disappears inside your shirt cuff anyway). I've been to balls and other events where I have been similarly tagged, accidentally highlighting me as a toff worth of abuse (as though wearing white tie would not).
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 11:21
|
>> I've been to balls and other events where I have been
>> similarly tagged, accidentally highlighting me as a toff worth of abuse (as though wearing white
>> tie would not).
>>
Have you been abused by people on the street because you were wearing your nightclub tag? Had stuff thrown at your house because your front door has been painted a bright obvious colour?
Have you considered a better way might be to issue said immigrants with a photo id?
No I guess not,
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 12:47
|
>> >> Have you considered a better way might be to issue said immigrants with a photo
>> id?
How's that going to help? They all look the same. Have you considered reading the Daily Express? Obviously not or you'd have a clearer understanding of the evident and present threat to absolutely everything at all times which immigration self evidently causes through the power of common sense.
|
They all look the same?
riiiiight. That speaks volumes.
Oh and BTW I dont accept the validity of common sense statements or lessons from non practitioners.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 12:10
|
|
I think my irony/sarcasm (which wasn't aimed at you) has flown a couple of inches over the old noggin there, Zero.
|
|
Was about to ask if Zero heard the 'whoosh'.
|
clearly apologies if he didn't.
Just never try to offer me any car buying advice.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 12:19
|
I think we all accept that there was no intention on the part of the authorities to label the asylum speakers. Having said that in view of the asylum seekers complaints that the bands and red doors were identifying them to the more undesirable elements of society it only seems reasonable to change the system for benefits and repaint the doors.
The problem having been identified would you insist that it is unchanged so that they can suffer more abuse?
|
From a writer at the esteemed current affairs publication, Viz:
twitter.com/barneyfarmer/status/691338257355952128
|
What is the panels opinion of this, bearing in mind that doing nothing is not an option.
news.sky.com/story/1630107/denmark-passes-tough-new-immigration-law
|
Reading it, its a waste of time. They only "recover" assets in excess of £1k, and wont include "sentimental" jewellery.
So, as an asylum seeker, how are you going to bring your assets with you?
And Denmark was only expecting 5k more than the normal amount of asylum seekers they would normally get!
Still, based on their past history, Its no suprise.
|
Many years ago I had some professional dealings with a left-wing Danish author, a highly intelligent man and a sympathetic figure.
He deplored a sort of inborn conservatism in Danes which he felt to be completely compatible with far-right fascism. 'b******ly' was one word he used, charmingly I thought.
Interesting for what it's worth, no?
|
Cannot improve on this assessment from another site I use:
This is what was done to the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, a punitive and heartless measure which is now universally derided. It is completely against the ideas and principles of asylum and refuge.
And yet here we are. At least the Danish government has, following criticism, amended the proposed measures, so that they will not now be seizing wedding rings and will allow a few more assets to be kept, but it is still inhumane and wrong.
It is a disgrace. Pure and simple.
It will also mean more of these refugees will be forced to turn to crime, prostitution and illegal work to survive. So, its likely to be entirely counterproductive, except of course if you are nationalistic right-winger who wants these refugees to become the kind of criminal invasion that would benefit your own political interests...
|
>> Cannot improve on this assessment from another site I use:
I disagree with immigration such as this and strongly believe we should sort out their homelands, so they can live in relative peace there instead.
However...
... taking items off refugees in the circumstances they are in, just isn't right in my book.
I'm surprised civilised countries have considered it, let alone implemented it.
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 21:57
|
SQ 4 LB
>> I'm surprised civilised countries have considered it, let alone implemented it.
This is the country that was more than happy to round up its jewish population, and have them ready when the Germans were invited to enter.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 27 Jan 16 at 01:31
|
|
I though nearly all Danish Jews escaped to neutral Sweden. May be wrong though.
|
>> I though nearly all Danish Jews escaped to neutral Sweden. May be wrong though.
>>
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews
|
Thought I read that it's only bringing them into line with Danish law.
EDIT from the Beeb article "The government has said that the policy brings refugees in line with unemployed Danes, who also face having to sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits."
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 26 Jan 16 at 22:51
|
>> Thought I read that it's only bringing them into line with Danish law.
>>
>> EDIT from the Beeb article "The government has said that the policy brings refugees in
>> line with unemployed Danes, who also face having to sell assets above a certain level
>> to claim benefits."
Quite.
When you're being assessed for UK benefits you won't get them if your assets are in excess of a sum. Assets includes all investments, and gold - particularly if you need to transport you wealth easily - would be regarded as an investment.
I don't see why, because they're assylum seekers, people should be entitled to
I think the "The Danish are Nazis" mantra being toted about is quite bizarre.
|
Mind bleach time!
tinyurl.com/hkzkhn2 Link to The (former) Torygraph.
|
>> "Mind bleach"? Why?
He's a self-confessed racist and lecher FMR, so he's probably feeling a bit guilty about something.
|
Oh.
Is there no limit to the depth...........?
|
I don't care about anyone's sexual exploits - as long as they are legal.
It is only voyeurs who are interested..
|
"It is only voyeurs who are interested.."
Oh, I don't know ......... it gives some insight into the man's character. It's one thing to know about it, but something else to want to take a peep.
|
>> Oh, I don't know ......... it gives some insight into the man's character. It's one
>> thing to know about it, but something else to want to take a peep.
Man came home to bedsit unexpectedly while his girlfriend is still in bed?
And that tells us what?
|
"And that tells us what?"
The fact that Jezzer was willing to bed the Hackney Hippo tells me that he is courageous, and certainly not a racist. If he invited his mates round for a neb, then it shows that he's a caring, sharing sort of chap.
An all-round good egg. What's wrong with that, eh, Brompt - I'm sure you'd do the same?
|
>> Man came home to bedsit unexpectedly while his girlfriend is still in bed?
>>
>> And that tells us what?
>>
I think you'll find the article suggested he staged the visit, without Miss Abbott's knowledge and the people assisting him with the leaflets were uncomfortable with it.
Now, as to why he'd do that, the speculation was to firm up his lefty credentials by showing he was dating a black lady, (bearing in mind the era he was in then).
|
>> I think you'll find the article suggested he staged the visit, without Miss Abbott's knowledge
>> and the people assisting him with the leaflets were uncomfortable with it.
I know what the article suggested. For those in any doubt carp editing means the suggestion is there twice.
Sort of wonder whether there's a more innocent explanation than a post facto rationalisation story 35 yrs down the line and probably paid for .
It's not as if the Belly laffs owners have a vendetta on Corbyn...
|
>> Sort of wonder whether there's a more innocent explanation than a post facto rationalisation story
>> 35 yrs down the line.
Well, you could be right of course... but on the other hand?
|
>> "Mind bleach"? Why?
>>
I'm guessing it's the thought of seeing Diane Abbott in the raw.
|
>> I'm guessing it's the thought of seeing Diane Abbott in the raw.
I think we'd probably all worked that one out.
I'd guess Ms Abbot would need a pretty strong dose of mind bleach if thinking of 80yo roundhead Roger in the raw....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 30 Jan 16 at 20:30
|
>> I'd guess Ms Abbot would need a pretty strong dose of mind bleach if thinking
>> of 80yo roundhead Roger in the raw....
I had Roger down as a royalist.
|
>> >> I'm guessing it's the thought of seeing Diane Abbott in the raw.
>>
>> I think we'd probably all worked that one out.
Well why was the question asked then?
|
>>Well why was the question asked then?
If you're asking me then it was because I wasn't sure if the comment was made because she was female, non-white, left wing, perceived as unattractive or with Corbyn.
I was wondering just how low Roger sinks. But let's be honest with Roger, 5/5 wouldn't be a huge surprise.
|
I've often said I quite like Jeremy Corbyn and approve of his general line, although less than I used to.
But who has been getting at him to suck up to Argentina and disrespect the British servicemen who lost their lives recovering the Falklands? That really does make him seem a bit of a loon.
Ideology is one thing, politics is another. A pro politician shouldn't get them confused like that. I'm disappointed.
|
>> I'm disappointed.
>>
Glad you got there in the end then AC
|
>> Ideology is one thing, politics is another. A pro politician shouldn't get them confused like
>> that. I'm disappointed.
>
If you live in a world where you are always right - as you speak with no-one who disagrees with you - then real politics is a major change. After 40 years of that, you cannot change.
And he's not that bright.
|
>> If you live in a world where you are always right - as you speak with no-one who disagrees with you - then real politics is a major change. After 40 years of that, you cannot change.
As a professional parliamentarian, Jeremy Corbyn is disagreed with in public at short irregular intervals.
>> And he's not that bright.
You think so madf? In my experience most politicians are very bright indeed. But they often play it down, keep it under their hats so to speak. The last thing they want is to intimidate the voters with their brilliance. The voters are supposed to see them as ordinary Joes, like the voters.
|
>>And he's not that bright.
Who knows for sure? But to me he certainly comes across as not all that bright.
|
>> >> If you live in a world where you are always right - as you
>> speak with no-one who disagrees with you - then real politics is a major change.
>> After 40 years of that, you cannot change.
>>
>> As a professional parliamentarian, Jeremy Corbyn is disagreed with in public at short irregular intervals.
But not by people who have opinions he respects. So you end up with self-affirming views of the nutters who agree with each other, and anybody who doesn't agree with them is wicked, so it doesn't matter what they think.
That failure to understand the real world is why I agree that he does not seem very bright. Or at least, does not appear to have much common sense.
|
How do all the people who believe Corbyn does not understand the real world know that they are not the ones with groupthink?
Perhaps he does understand at least some aspects of the "real world" which is why he wants to change it.
I don't find him convincing on public finances, but then I don't find Osborne or Cameron convincing either.
|
>> How do all the people who believe Corbyn does not understand the real world know
>> that they are not the ones with groupthink?
Because I'm right and Corbyn is deluded. Simple.
|
I read somewhere that Corbyn and his devout followers are very much into the concept that their group is driven by principle; that, deep down, they know they will make (have already made?) the Labour Party unelectable for years, but that somehow this isn't important - they will blindly go on doing their thing, because they believe in it. The more militant ones want to force the rest of the party into line - it's almost like some bizarre kind of inward-looking religious cult, reminiscent of the left-wing fervour seen in the early twentieth century.
So discussions about whether Corbyn is a loon, a nutter, not very bright or whatever kind of miss the point. The truth is, he's really in some kind of parallel universe, which has just a few points of contact with the one the rest of us live in and no more.
|
>> he truth is, he's really in some kind of parallel universe, which has just a few points of contact with the one the rest of us live in and no more.
Pretty much like any senior Minister then.
The real problem here of course is that without a strong Opposition, then the Tories will be in power for longer than is desirable or justified.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35504185
>>
>> More problems for Corbyn.>>
What a surprise.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35504185
>>
>> More problems for corbyn.
Political party contains mysogonists......
Oooodathortit!!
|
> Political party contains mysogonists......
>>
>> Oooodathortit!!
>>
I'm sure not, however I'd say he needs this like a hole in the head right now.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 6 Feb 16 at 16:02
|
|
Doesn't matter anyway, unless Labour suddenly find a source for working magic wands and a supply of oofle dust they aren't going to be in power for the foreseeable future and never while Corbyn is at the helm.
|
Corbyn is a loon! - Roger.
