ECCOnoob

For exactly the same reason why the Muslim Council has chosen this particular moment to raise lots of criticism about the Tory party for alleged islamophobia. Happens every election time. The biggest problem for Corbyn is he simply can't help himself. Taking decisive action is not his strong point. Dithering along burying his head in the sand all the time. Even the simple step of doing a public apology which would have clearly diffused the situation and pushed focus back on the Tories own problems was simply beyond him Good god a neanderthal could have predicted how that was going to pan out in the papers the next day and surprise surprise he is now the focus for all the wrong reasons. For someone with such a lengthy career in politics it's almost astounding they can be thick as mince. Fit for office? I don't think so.

Actually no I'm not. One is legal (.... albeit morally distasteful to many people) and the other is an actual criminal offence. You're desperate argument has been done to death. it's completely irrelevant how much someone has in the bank account or how much somebody earns. If the laws state that they are legally obliged to pay x amount that is the amount they pay. Until such time as the actual written tax laws are changed there is absolutely no obligation on anyone whether they have a penny in the bank or £1000000 to pay more than they have to. Where there are grey areas in the law some people utilise them others will break them and many others will be in between following whatever their lawyers and accountants will tell them to do. Where there are disputes it is the job of the courts and all the HMRC to sort them out. Sometimes the so-called rich people win the battle. Other times the government win the battle. It is a very messy and complex process. However there is no court of morality and there is certainly no high horse for a poor person to jump on when they buy illegal fags. They can be deemed just a distasteful as someone who is legally avoiding tax. Like I said earlier, it matters not a jot what the amounts are it's all relative.

Yeah yeah and the poorer members of society never do any of that right? hmmmm. Never see any market traders dealing in cash only - how much of that going through the books officially.... How many punters are out there are hiring their electricians in joiners and builders offering you a nice little discount for cash payment only. Oh yes you never ever see poor people buy knock-off and stolen goods out of suitcases from Jim Bob down at number 32 who has 'contacts'. Never see them buying clearly fake designer or import specials of high value items for a third of the price and vat free You never saw them a few years ago going on day trips to Calais filling their cars to the brim with cheap booze praying that they wouldn't be picked out in the customs line. You never see small and sole traders scouring through their personal expenditure finances and picking out all and everything they can try it on and put through the business to get tax relief.... Yeah right.h Theres no moral high ground that you seem to think. Sure the amounts may be smaller but it's still all relative.

No Corbyn has not. Why do you keep bringing this media bias up. He has had access to the same press as every other leader. For every negative story/tweet/post/blog about Corbyn there are just as many declaring the sun shines out of his backside. You see what you want to see. Try looking at the Daily Mirror or The Independent or The Guardian a bit more. They sing his praises all the time. Ultimately, Corbyn polarises the electorate. The media reflects that. It's just that simple. Enough with the media bias whining. If Corbyn is reported to have performed crap in a debate, maybe... Just maybe it's because he was.

It won't. It will still be a panto crowd, booing and hissing at the right side and mindlessly clapping along to the left side. This unwanted and pointless Americanised trend of public televised tit for tat argument can sod right off. It's supposed to engage and inform the public but all it does is dumb them down. Well researched and robust interviewing is whats needed not some stupid glorified radio phone in session filled with Mr Angry of Gleadless or Ms Hysterical from Totley.

I could not agree more with that. It drives me insane. Its exactly the same problem with Any Questions on Radio 4. Silly reactionary panto audience booing the opponents or moronically clapping along with their chosen favourite irrelevant of what they say or how valid the point was. It completely ruins any true independant debate on the subjects under discussion and just turns it into an hour of tit for tat argument. This whole audience thing dumbs the process down. If I had my way it would be closed set. Single camera Q&A and by a proper journalist. No soundbites. No clapometer. No taking sides and cheering from the fan clubs. A forensic and evidence led cross examination of both (or all) candidates. No broadcaster would do it though. They are far too concerned with getting the ratings in.

Yeah yeah blah blah. Heard it all before Anna. Of course corporations should be paying less percentage rate than an individual. The world of business and particularly large corporations employ millions of people, creates investment keeps the economy moving. Civil service doesn't make money it just spends it. I get fed up with this constant simplistic argument that the rich must be taxed more as if it's even that simple. You say Amazon makes sales of 5.3 billion but where exactly did they make those sales? How much that sales total resulted in a profit? How much was deemed as loss? How much are overheads? How much are assets and loans and interest and charges? What countries has the overall control? What country has the tax collection? What subsidiary applies to the figures and where is that subsidiary located? Amazon just like any other company pays what the law in the relevant jurisdiction says they have to pay. That law is an extremely complex, contradictory and confusing world. Even more so for huge global corporations operating out of multiple jurisdictions with multiple different tax laws. "... Oh change the laws then..." They all simplisticly scream. Maybe people need to go to take a proper look at how that actually happens. Some people need a reality check as to how laws are actually made and the parliamentary process. See how long it actually takes for a bill to be presented, the readings, the debates, the votes, the amendments, second readings, third readings, approval, escalation to the lords, readings, debates, further amendments, second readings, escalation for royal assent..... I'm sick to death of Labour's solution to everything being "...tax the rich..." It's a pathetic cop-out. Don't you bet your life that he won't go after small and medium enterprises either. Labour will never be satisfied until they finish spending other people's money. Even more so when Jezza wakes up to the reality that is not so easy to keep increasing tax on big corporations as he seems to think. Just like any other sensible organisation who are pushed too far they will simply up sticks and go somewhere else. See how that plays out to the economy. See how consumers like it if a their favourite company suddenly stopped operating in the UK. Typical soundbites. Just another load of simplistic, unrealistic, impractical load of hot air from an incompetent weak leader.

It works absolutely fine. Unfortunately too many lazy self-important types would rather park up and sit waiting in the in the drop-off bay causing mayhem behind them. I too wish there was far more enforcement by staff or some other organisation to move people on if they are sat waiting in any of the drop-off zones. People wouldn't expect to get away with it outside in airport but somehow they think train stations it's perfectly acceptable to cause inconvenience to others. Exactly the same thing happens at meadowhall interchange. So many times I've seen cars parked up in the hatch drop-off area getting in the way whilst they sit there waiting for there are family and friends to arrive rather than spending 2 minutes actually bothering to park in a proper bay.

Dont know what why you are bringing Gareth Davies into the discussion. What the hell has he got to do with Jared's behaviour. Also there is no such field as "comptroller" law. The role of the Auditor General and National Audit Office falls under Regulations 11-19 of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 and would fall into the category of Administrative Law. Please do astound me with your legal insight what these "fragrant breaches" are. Whilst you are there, might want to have a look at little things like Section 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 or the Fraud Act 2006 or maybe even Section 26 (2) of the Equality Act 2010.

Hey Jared, Think you need to take a look in a dictionary at what 'slanderous' means. The online and verbal abuse, the disgraceful behaviour, the incompetence in office and corruption are all sufficiently evidenced and reported upon. Nothing remotely slanderous has been said.

No no no you can't be coming out with facts like that. It's all the evil tories fault init.

I fill my days with a full-time professional job and having to support help two disabled members of my family. News flash. Not everyone agrees with your 'positive' opinion of Jared. In fact if you took the time to look you will see that theres a substantial amount of people who don't support your opinion and that is exactly the reason why they are bloody delighted he is not standing. There are very genuine reasons for people's anger and frustrations. What about all the people let down by their representative in parliament? What about all the people who he insulted and abused both online and verbally?; What about taxpayers and the public purse having to deal with the fallout of his corruption, failures and total mismanagement of office? How dare you try to dismiss it as some witch hunt. You are as deluded as the man himself. As another poster has recently said the man should be ashamed of himself. There is no disability card to be played here he thoroughly deserves the criticism he's getting. Well-paid jobs in the public eye comes public scrutiny, public criticism and a lot of responsibility. He knew that from day one.

Not a denier at all. So he is disabled. And? Lots of other people are too. What they don't do is use their disability as some pathetic excuse and desprate sympathy attempt to cover up their corrupt, inappropriate or vile behaviour. That is what O'Mara did. People saw through it. They quite rightly challenged him and instead of taking responsibility and facing the consequences he tried to play the card even more. The only thing hateful and disingenuous in this scenario is Jared himself. Facing up to ones issues gets sympathy. Admitting and changing when one commits nasty acts gets public support. Making excuses, carrying on regardless and hiding away whilst still receiving a nice fat public pay cheque doesn't.

It's not as Jeremy's got much else to do anyway. He certainly not busy acting like he opposition leader. "Personally insisted" my backside. He's campaigning in election. He does whatever gives good PR. I am not buying the hysterics in the papers either. All these residents going on about no support and banging on about Boris not doing anything.... Nonsense. I was seeing with my own eyes and hearing reports as early as Thursday last week about severe flood warnings, evacuations and involvement from the emergency services. The news reports were all on about it all day Friday and the weekend. There was footage being show of emergency services closing down roads and evacuating people. Somebody must have organised that and made decisions. There is no guarantee on any natural disaster. Weather is like that it's unpredictable. It was just as unpredictable for us in 2007. I am not unsympathetic to anyone having to go through the situation but I want to know why all the focus on the prime minister and the Tories. Why is it that everything that happens in this country at the moment is jumped upon by the anti-tory brigade and used as some stick. Why are questions not been asked about the responsibilities of the local authorities, the rivers and canal trust, the Environment Agency. Why is nobody looking into what happened with the money from the last batch of flood defence funding. What has been done, how often and by whom. What if anything failed and if so who was responsible for it. There is potentially a chain of failure here and it doesn't all lie with the p.m no matter how many times people shout it

You got anything to support that? The floods happened just 7 days ago. The army is deployed, there's been emergency committees involved, the prime minister has visited the scene and steps are being sorted out for emergency funding. I really don't know what more you expect to happen in less than a week. This whole North-South thing is just horse crap. It could have happened outside the pm's front door but there's very little more that could or should have been done in the time frame. The p.m. is hardly going to be able to stand there and stop the tide physically is he? Neither is he realistically expected to stand there for hours and pumping out water, carrying supplies and piling up sandbags for the residents. Things get done in London. Things get sorted from his office. Things get decided in his cabinet room. Not standing in his waders pointing at things and putting on a sad face for the cameras. Just because Corbyn has wound up the PR machine to max and done a load of electioneering photo ops doesn't mean that the current government hasn't done anything they should have. The media and woe is me talking heads are just sensationalising and whipping up hysteria to get the numbers up and sell more papers.

Did he balls. He was an arrogant, lazy, selfish and nasty piece of work who loved to play the disability card whenever he was caught out. He was an embarrassment to the constituency. Thrust into the spotlight by the momentum morons and inevitably became a complete failure. Good riddance.

Is there any reason for the derogatory term "snowflake" being used here. Have you actually stopped to think maybe why the "children and young people" might not have such a high level of understanding of an event that happened over a century ago. Who and how have they been taught about it. How often. How long. How in depth. What about all the other prominent historical events that have happened since which may, in their generations' education and curriculum, have more prominence. Its not acceptable to just insultingly claim that they are ignorant. It may not be such a case at all. Think about other events in history. WWII, the cold war, US and African apartheid, the rise and fall of the iron curtain, the falklands war, the gulf war, the Ireland Troubles, the terror attacks of 2001, the Iraq war..... We have a fresher university generation who are post Google, even post smart phone. They school with laptops. They teach with tablets. The subjects, methods and ways of educating are wholly different now. Of course the events of WWI should not be forgotten but its pretty obvious that with passage of time the prominence of history evolves and the next generations have their own significant events.

To be clear, M&P are going into administration but they are not going completely. The current report says that they are closing six of their stores (none of which appear to be round here) and keeping the remaining 26 trading as normal. Same old story really. Even their owners has been quoted saying that "...in branch sales are dwindling due to the fact that more customers are chosing to shop online..."

We are debating politics but I don't agree with all this asking and I'll informed assumptions on who someone has or hasn't voted for just because of their comments. It's absolutely irrelevant who I have voted for. The point I was trying to counter is this lazy stereotype which is too often thrown around that all Tory voters are somehow poshies with lots of money in the bank. That clearly cannot be the case when over 13.6 million people voted for them at last election. People need to be choosing their vote on wider issues and the actual candidates instead of simply and moronicly following some heard and picking a colour.

It's none of your business what I am. I vote for whichever candidate appeals to me the most at the appropriate time and once I have considered all the options and read all the literature and research upon them. As the only thing we the general public have a say on is our local MP, they are the ones that are focus my attention on. I don't follow the herd. I don't aimlessly support a colour. I don't mindlessly do whatever a particular brand of newspaper tells me to do. I don't blindly accept opinion pieces or pledges or statements or criticism or meaning soundbites from a single source. I wish more people would wise up and follow these actions and then we might end up with a more varied and balanced parliament instead of the repeated two horse race we have now.

Well maybe you need to ask a wider circle then. The Tories got 13.6 million votes last election - that's a hell of a lot of billionaire elites isn't it. The "few" as Corbyn keeps banging on about is pretty large by the looks of it.

What like here... https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/nov/09/tory-islamophobia-hancock-accused-of-trying-to-isolate-warsi https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49763550 http://theconversation.com/conservative-party-is-in-complete-denial-about-its-islamophobia-problem-just-look-at-boris-johnson-if-you-need-proof-119674 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-islamophobia-racism-muslim-uk-investigate-tory-a8932851.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/britain-conservative-party-islamophobia-problem-190311093447086.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-islamophobia-muslim-council-britain-a8954141.html https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jun/27/tory-islamophobia-inquiry-will-be-general-investigation-boris-johnson-sajid-javid https://www.itv.com/news/2019-05-17/dossier-exposes-more-than-100-cases-of-islamophobia-and-racism-from-people-claiming-to-be-conservative-party-members/ https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/08/why-aren-t-tories-cracking-down-islamophobia-their-party https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2019/08/05/conservative-party-to-start-long-awaited-investigation-into-islamophobia-crisis/ https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/04/conservative-party-face-inquiry-islamophobia-10516130/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-islamophobia-inquiry-conservative-party-boris-johnson-a9038581.html Waaaaa. Media bias. Waaaaa.

From the Jewish Voice for Labour blogsite which has reposted the same list time and time and time again in order to try to conter Corbyn's failures. Its also over the Times of Israel site and Squarkbox. Most of them meaningless. By example.... The BBC and Guardian ran features on ".... Corbyn used one of his first PMQs to challenge Cameron to do more on antisemitism ...." Which is a nice warped interpretation of what happened at PMQs when Cameron brought up the Anti-Semitism scandal and Corbyn provided one of his usual flailing responses. The BBC, Guardian, Independants, Politico, New Statesman, Sun, Mirror and Sky all have references to "... Jeremy introduced 20 new measures to combat antisemitism in the Labour Party..." but that's hardly impressive considering he had no choice but to take action following the scandal breaking out, the investigation being commenced and his MPs dropping like flies. As for some generic list of early day motions and co-sponsoring - what exactly is the great media story to cover? Corbyn condems xx Corbyn co-sponsors xx Big deal. Of course he is going to make a statement to "condem". His world is image and PR. As a politician he is not going to publicly state he supports anti-semetic acts is he? None of that outweights his failures to tackle the root of the problem. None of that outweighs his failures to tackle the people involved direclty. None of that outweights his own poor judgements. Actions speak louder than words and as party leader his actions should be the most robust of all. They arn't. Weak leadership. Weak response. There is no media bias here. Corbyn has ample opportunity to get his message out there. Corbyn has ample opportunity to respond to criticism. Corbyn has ample opportunity to step out of his comfort zone and fight the battle. He doesn't. Round and round he goes preaching to his disciples, sitting wedged firmly on the fence when it comes to difficult issues and failing to deliver any coherent message. That is not the fault of the so called "establishment media". That is the fault of the incompetence of the flesh and bone charged with running the Labour Party.

Waaaa media bias waaa. Same old head burying. Same old excuses.

But they were open as usual. They were perfectly entitled to send out such message. Just because some parts of the area are still flooded and have problems does not mean all is. I had to get back to work as usual this morning and so did many others.