titch juicy

Not at all naff.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Another embarrassing interview when Corbyn failed > to come up with the cost of Child Care. > > One of Labour's prime Manifesto Policies > > Every time he is asked a question he reaches > nervously for his little Red Book > > #Man is Joke > > DulwichFox That simply isn't true. Stop reaching.

Didn't Philip Hammond balls something similar up too? Was it reported? (it must've been if i know about it, but perhaps it didn't sit as BBC website's main headline all day)

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The vast majority of IS wealth comes from > robbery, > > extortion, oil revenue, taxation and > kidnapping. > > Less than 5% of Islamic State's revenue comes > from > > donations, > > Would love to see the evidence for this. There's a fair bit on this in the Washington Post piece. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/18/how-isis-makes-its-money/?utm_term=.d404c6bd13d8

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Firstly Jeremy Corbyn's approach to combating > ISIS > > abroad is to "cut of arms and funding" for > ISIS. > > Let's start unpacking that. The international > > coalition against ISIS have been "cutting off > arms > > and funding" for ISIS since the very beginning > of > > their campaign against them. What people do not > > seem to understand, no matter how many times it > is > > plainly explained, is that Islamic State do not > > receive huge amounts of external funding. > > > > The vast majority of IS wealth comes from > robbery, > > extortion, oil revenue, taxation and > kidnapping. > > Less than 5% of Islamic State's revenue comes > from > > donations, those donations are from private > > citizens and are very difficult to trace. Saudi > > Arabia and the Gulf States are categorically > not > > funding Islamic State, they are part of the > > anti-IS coalition and are actively fighting > > Islamic State. Anyone found guilty of financing > > Islamic State in one of those countries would > be > > imprisoned for a very long time. So talking > about > > arms deals to Saudi Arabia doesn't change > anything > > with regards to ISIS, no matter how many times > > leftists write articles about it. > > > > Now onto arms, ISIS have a lot of weaponry, the > > vast majority of it stolen. They have stolen it > > from the US-backed Iraqi army, they have stolen > > them from Gulf-armed rebel groups, they have > > stolen them from the Russian backed Assad > regime. > > There are no large convoys of arms coming in to > > Islamic State territory from neighbouring > > governments. If there were, it would require > air > > strikes to destroy those convoys, air strikes > > which Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end. > > > > Therefore the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is going > to > > stop ISIS by stopping fantasy revenue funds it > > does not receive and arms shipments that do not > > exist is as fanciful as trying to chop down an > oak > > tree by strangling it. It will not work, it is > not > > grounded in reality. However instead of mocking > > his answers the British public loudly applaud > him > > because they do not understand this. Then, when > > this is pointed out by those who understand the > > situation, they are then called Tories or > > imperialists or war mongers simply for pointing > > out the facts. > > > > Leaked from Hillary's email server last year > > ?We need to use our diplomatic and more > traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure > on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, > which are providing clandestine financial and > logistic support to Isis and other radical groups > in the region.? > > Looks like a direct repost to what your friend > says > > http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinto > n-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allie > s-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html This piece would suggest otherwise. While it states that wealthy families in Saudi etc. still provide a small amount of funding, good headway was made to put a stop to this. The extent to which ISIS gets funding from elsewhere and the diversity of funding sources is rather unnerving. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/18/how-isis-makes-its-money/?utm_term=.9d2a2ea53e5e

My post was to Jules-and-Boo.

That wasn't the point of the post or the context of the discussion. It was just a criticism of Corbyn's policy and previous on Syria in particular. I'm sure if you wanted to you could find critiques of May's foreign policy. Please post them here for us to read. Here's a new (journalistic) piece from Paul Mason, who as you know is very pro-corbyn. But, he's also a journalist and as such also reserves some criticism for Corbyn's foreign policy, as this is a journalistic piece. His facebook posts are very pro-corbyn and don't provide balance. "Jeremy Corbyn, although he has left behind pacifism and unilateralism, needs to facilitate the emergence of a new, positive Labour defence and security policy. It should be focused on the real threats ? a disintegrating world order and the growing unpredictability of thousands of jihadis in the UK ? not just a set of old leftwing nostrums." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/29/we-need-a-new-defence-strategy-donald-trump-has-hung-europe-out-to-dry

It was a facebook post. Not a journalistic piece. I guess there was no need for me to mention the fact that he was a journalist

A friend of a friend is a journalist and filmmaker from Beirut, currently living in Istanbul had this to say on Corbyn's foreign policy. "Firstly, Paxman was f'ing crap, let's get that out of the way. Looks like his race is run, time for him to retire. Secondly, remember when Donald Trump said he was going to make a deal with the Israelis and Palestinians for peace? Remember how he was mocked for this? Remember how his words weren't just accepted but they were also scrutinised and found to be total bollocks? Yeah, Corbyn does that on Syria and he gets a loud round of applause. Again, I'm going to break this down into tiny detail so the sceptics among you can understand what is being said. Firstly Jeremy Corbyn's approach to combating ISIS abroad is to "cut of arms and funding" for ISIS. Let's start unpacking that. The international coalition against ISIS have been "cutting off arms and funding" for ISIS since the very beginning of their campaign against them. What people do not seem to understand, no matter how many times it is plainly explained, is that Islamic State do not receive huge amounts of external funding. The vast majority of IS wealth comes from robbery, extortion, oil revenue, taxation and kidnapping. Less than 5% of Islamic State's revenue comes from donations, those donations are from private citizens and are very difficult to trace. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are categorically not funding Islamic State, they are part of the anti-IS coalition and are actively fighting Islamic State. Anyone found guilty of financing Islamic State in one of those countries would be imprisoned for a very long time. So talking about arms deals to Saudi Arabia doesn't change anything with regards to ISIS, no matter how many times leftists write articles about it. Now onto arms, ISIS have a lot of weaponry, the vast majority of it stolen. They have stolen it from the US-backed Iraqi army, they have stolen them from Gulf-armed rebel groups, they have stolen them from the Russian backed Assad regime. There are no large convoys of arms coming in to Islamic State territory from neighbouring governments. If there were, it would require air strikes to destroy those convoys, air strikes which Jeremy Corbyn has promised to end. Therefore the idea that Jeremy Corbyn is going to stop ISIS by stopping fantasy revenue funds it does not receive and arms shipments that do not exist is as fanciful as trying to chop down an oak tree by strangling it. It will not work, it is not grounded in reality. However instead of mocking his answers the British public loudly applaud him because they do not understand this. Then, when this is pointed out by those who understand the situation, they are then called Tories or imperialists or war mongers simply for pointing out the facts. NEXT, Syria. We are back in the realms of Donald Trump's fantasy peace deal in Israel here. Jeremy Corbyn's frequent positions on Syria are as follows, 1) he wants a negotiated settlement and the restarting of the peace process which includes Iran. 2) He thinks all action should be carried out through the UN. Both of these positions are based on fallacies, neither of them are ever properly scrutinised by the British press. Firstly, Corbyn has been talking about involving Iran in the peace process since the very start of the crisis as if they have not been involved. In reality, Iran has been involved in the Syria "peace talks" for many years now, in fact, they run the show. Iran and Russia are the bulwark against international accountability for the Assad regime, they are as intransigent on diplomacy re:Assad as ISIS would be re: Baghdadi. Iran and Russia are in Syria to preserve the Assad regime. While Corbyn says there is "no military solution in Syria", Assad, Putin and Tehran disagree and are pushing forward with their plan to cleanse all of Syria. Understanding this is important, the issue isn't negotiating peace in Syria, it is negotiating what a future Syria will look like and what process the international community can take to hold parties accountable to those agreements. People seem so quick to forget that the Russians negotiated an aid convoy into Aleppo and then bombed it before it could enter. This is what we are dealing with there, this is not a case of the British government being bad at diplomacy, it is about the international community being paralysed by continuously trying to talk their way out of a conflict in which the party holding the power has no intention of talking about anything. Furthermore, Corbyn has repeatedly refused to call for Assad to step down or transition out of power. This is why the rebels are fighting, they want Assad gone. There is no reality in which rebels will surrender to Assad and live happily under Assad. If Corbyn has no position on Assad's future, unlike the British government who are still insistent on a transition and refusal to normalise relations, then Corbyn won't be negotiating for peace in Syria, he will be negotiating a victory for the Assad regime. A victory for Assad will not ensure peace but will instead fuel the fires of extremism and war for many decades to come. The last point is the UN, and this is critical. Corbyn continues to push the fallacy that any military action must be decided through the United Nations. Corbyn rejected and still opposes the Libya No Fly Zone. The Libya No Fly Zone was UN security council mandated. So, in the last example of the UN backing military action, Corbyn opposed. He would oppose UN backed military action in Syria too. Most importantly, if Corbyn was prime minister he would have a veto at the UN. He can't have a neutral position on military action, he is either for it or against it and Britain's vote in the UNSC is critical to that action. Therefore there can be no UN-backed military action unless Jeremy Corbyn either votes for it or abstains. This also fails to include the fact that Russia, which backs Assad and commits near-daily war crimes in Syria, also has a veto at the UNSC and have been vetoing any and all meaningful UN action on Syria, including against chemical weapons, for nearly 7 years. Pushing Syria towards the UN is essentially Corbyn giving Vladimir Putin veto powers over the entirety of British foreign policy in the Middle East. Look, you might not care about this stuff, which I can accept. But what I can't accept is the mindless circus applause as if we were all seals waiting by the side of the pool for someone to throw us a fish. These are dangerously naive positions to hold at best and criminally neglectful positions to hold at worse.To see people who genuinely don't understand the conflict continue to push his foreign policy words as "principled" is deeply frustrating. I know many of you have your hearts in the right places, but what you are endorsing is not only stupid but also massively counterproductive. It is also not in line with the frequent statements put out by human rights organisations such as Amnesty International. I know you all care more about what you think will happen to the NHS and schools and that's fine, I understand, but that does not give you the right to start pushing this insidious nonsense to people when you don't even have the facts to back it up. Please, for the love of god, scrutinise this man like you would any other politician. Just because you talk a strong game about "peace" doesn't mean your policy approach won't make things worse both at home and abroad. And, if we have anything to go off, after Donald Trump carried out a barely significant strike against an Assad air base, Corbyn asked his own shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith how the Labour party should respond. Griffith allegedly said that Labour should support a proportionate response, Corbyn overruled this and condemned the strikes. Corbyn is overruling his own defence secretary because he thinks he knows best when he clearly doesn't. This is a troubling precedent to set."

A couple of interesting pieces from the IFS regarding manifesto costing, spending and truthfulness. This shows that the Lib Dems are pledging a hell of a lot more to the welfare state than Labour and that their costings are more realistic. https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/income-tax-and-benefits-the-liberal-democrats-and-labour-compared This shows that unsurprisingly both main parties are being economical with the truth http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40057115

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mick Mac Wrote: > > > Apologies, but I had to get that in before > > midnight. It's a shame no-one else posted in > > support of this remarkable event. > > It was nice to see BBC put the Glasgow 67 > > documentary on the main channel last night. > Thanks > > Alan Medic for highlighting. > > Forever 67. > > I hadn't seen that particular documentary before > and would highly recommend it. It has a charm > about it. It can still be seen on the BBC i > player. > > On a different note I'd be curious to know what > Spurs fans here think they were missing that > Chelsea had to win the league? > > Good to see Jose at least happy for once. It > amazing that one game defined how good or bad the > season was for him & United. If they lost it would > have been considered not good enough, but winning > it means it was a great season. I seem to remember > him saying winning the Charity Shield was LVG's > and not his trophy. Seems like he's taken it back > now though. > > Why can't the FA Cup Final kick off at 3pm? It > used to be the highlight of the year for me when > there was hardly ever any football on TV. Too much > football just dilutes what used to be a pleasure. I don't think we need much either. Chelsea were a bit of a freak last season. Some might argue that we need another striker. I disagree. Son scored a bucketful this season and will likely improve again next. We know all about Kane and Alli and I truly believe Janssen will come good. He showed real signs of it towards the end of the season. Besides, we were the division's top scorers. I think the only area we need to strengthen is perhaps in wide attacking areas. We did this last summer bringing in Sissoko and N'Koudou. Sissoko looks like being a big error and N'Koudou hasn't really had a chance to show what (if anything) he can do. And if Walker leaves, which is looking likely, someone to cover for Trippier. There's a lot of talk about tempting Dani Alves from Juventus. I think that would be ideal for the European campaign and to have an experienced winner in the squad.

Surely it goes back a lot further than the iraq war?

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For God's sake, she's a stupid kid. You may well > have been fully mature and together when you were > a student. You'd be the only one I'd ever heard > of. > > I very much doubt she'd be snorting coke before > going in to theatre when she qualifies. > > So judgemental J&B, I'm genuinely quite surprised. I was a really stupid kid at uni. I took drugs and drank too much and didn't go to enough lectures. i definitely wasn't fully mature. I didn't stab anyone though.

Careful Maxxi, i'm not sure some in this thread are ready for sensible comment.

This is a little concerning. https://twitter.com/AJScattergood/status/867497144420380673

So, what have we learnt from this thread? That the EDF has a number of average musicians and that Jeremy hates all bands that play at Dulwich Festival. And carps on

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > titch juicy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Apparently (I didn't know this) mobility > scooters > > are road worthy. > > > > I was cycling to Rotherhithe the other day on > Old > > Kent Road and as I was turning right onto > > Rotherhithe New Road, an old boy on a mobility > > scooter was doing the same! I questioned him > and > > he said it was perfectly legal. I was amazed. > > Only certain ones - the ones which can do 8MPH > (they must have a setting to switch back to 4MPH > for pavements). They're even allowed on dual > carrigeways with 50MPH limits or lower if they > have a flashing orange beacon, which seems just > bizarre. Yeah, this was a dual carriageway!

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Letters and parcels keep getting posted through > your letterbox year in, year out, and every one > (every. single. one.) says your name, a street > address then the phrase 'East Dulwich' on the > address. Really? Would it not say: your name your street address London postcode

Apparently (I didn't know this) mobility scooters are road worthy. I was cycling to Rotherhithe the other day on Old Kent Road and as I was turning right onto Rotherhithe New Road, an old boy on a mobility scooter was doing the same! I questioned him and he said it was perfectly legal. I was amazed.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't a pedestrian just someone 'on foot' > > Runners/walkers/hoppers don't forget the poor scrapers

von Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ""Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, has > confirmed that cyclists are permitted to ride on > the pavement, as long as they do so considerately, > according to an article on the road.cc website." > > The road safety minister is an idiot. It assumes > that most people riding on pavements will indeed > be "considerate" of pedestrians. We know that > unfortunately a percentage of the population do > not fit into that category, instead having a sense > of entitlement to do whatever they want. The OP > was knocked over in EastDulwich Road, I have also > found it to be an increasing problem with bikes > sometimes speeding past on the pavement. A few > weeks ago about 4 teenage boys from Harris Academy > decided to have a race on bikes along the > pavement, travelling at high speed and narrowly > missing myself and other pedestrians which > included parents with toddlers etc. It was so > dangerous I emailed the school but have not even > had an acknowledgement. > > And if one is unfortunate to be hurt by a cyclist > there will be absolutely no comeback on them, as > unless someone takes a photo at the time there is > absolutely no way of identifying the rider if they > decide to speed off as happened to the OP. But he said, "as long as those are considerate" So he's assuming nothing. The people that you were talking about weren't considerate, therefore don't fit with what he's saying. So, are those that are considerate ok?

And your thoughts on the Road Safety Minister's comments?

How do you feel about the Road Safety Minister's advice on the subject, and previous guidance issued? http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3319.html "Robert Goodwill, road safety minister, has confirmed that cyclists are permitted to ride on the pavement, as long as they do so considerately, according to an article on the road.cc website. Road.cc says the confirmation came in an email sent to the cycle campaigner Donnachadh McCarthy, in which the minister said that original guidance issued by the Home Office 15 years ago when Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) were introduced was still valid. Mr Goodwill said: ?Thank you for bringing the issue of cycling on the pavement around dangerous junctions such as Vauxhall Cross to my attention. ?I agree that the police should be using discretion in enforcing this law and would support Paul Boateng?s original guidance." That guidance from Mr Boateng, issued in 1999, said: ?The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. ?Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.? In response, Donnachadh McCarthy said: ?Fining vulnerable cyclists for cycling responsibly on the pavement at extremely dangerous junctions is a bedroom tax on two-wheels as there is no safe alternative for them to cycle on.?"

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if I were to say "I wasn't risking his safety > though. I was driving just over the legal limit > for alcohol t where there was plenty of room for > both" then people wouldn't accept it. > > There is no excuse to cycle on pavements as an > adult, there is no defence for doing so - saying > "but I wasnt risking" assumes that the other > person acts in a rational manner - what if they'd > sprinted in front of you, or stopped - or thrown > their arms out to the side to stretch and hit you > by accident? You should not have been there, you > are in the wrong and there is no defence for your > actions. You can tell how paper thin your argument is by the fact you're having to bring extreme and irrelevant (alcohol) examples into it. A person cycling slowly on a wide pavement for 5 metres has no correlation whatsoever with a person getting behind the wheel of a car, drunk. But, if that's the line you're going to take; Do you drive a car? Do you ever go above 20mph in a 20mph zone? or above 70mph on a motorway?

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > robbin Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > huh?! I suppose that's one thing to be > focussing > > your anxiety on. > > huh?! That perfectly reasonable set of > observations about social media were probably not > either tj's only focus or a source of anxiety. It > can indeed be extraordinarily heartless and > potentially dangerous to relay rumours, which in > these cases alas always include false ones. Yes, thanks, that's basically it.