(15 Nov 2015, 2:25 pm)Michael wrote He's an idiot, and people wonder why others have moved from supporting Labour to Conservative/UKIP etc... this nob will take us back to the dark ages.

(15 Nov 2015, 2:32 pm)MrFozz wrote Who?

Murdoch or Jihadi Jez [SMILING FACE WITH OPEN MOUTH AND TIGHTLY-CLOSED EYES]

(15 Nov 2015, 2:39 pm)Michael wrote I thought he was on about Corbyn.

(15 Nov 2015, 2:25 pm)Michael wrote He's an idiot, and people wonder why others have moved from supporting Labour to Conservative/UKIP etc... this nob will take us back to the dark ages.

(15 Nov 2015, 2:29 pm)MrFozz wrote Corbyn cant win...it does not matter what he says, it will be twisted and turned into something it's not

'Jihadi Jez' thats not fair at all...

I do agree with Corbyn, it would have been better to bring Emwazi to justice, but that aint going to happen really

(15 Nov 2015, 3:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote Must admit to thinking you were calling Murdoch.
Didn't Labour membership go up with Corbyn?

Regardless of your opinion on Corbyn, I would be sure you wouldn't put him in to the same category as Jihadi John.


It was the same last week, when the press decided he didn't bow at the cenotaph.
They didn't bother highlighting the amount of time he spent speaking to veterans, rather than sit having a slap up meal like the rest of them did.

Totally agree about getting these war criminals into a court of law.
Whether it was the Bosnians, Serbs, Bush or Blair...

How practical that would be, is another thing.

(15 Nov 2015, 3:46 pm)Michael wrote No, jesus i know his bad but his not as bad as Jihadi John...

(16 Nov 2015, 3:26 pm)MrFozz wrote I may not be keen on Corbyn myself, but the witch hunt against him seems to be getting more intense, making statements that he would not press the Red Button if the time came, not singing the National Anthem, not bowing at the Cenotaph gives the gutter the ammo to tear him apart, no matter what my opinion is, it is getting nasty and very personal, comparing him to Mohammed Emwazi is stepping over the mark.

I believe Air Strikes should always be on the table as a response, but if using diplomatic deals can be done, it should be thought about

(02 Dec 2015, 9:31 am)Andreos1 wrote The press have been blaming Corbyn for backing down over the airstrikes and implying it is his fault if they actually happen via sensationalist headlines.
Despite lambasting him days previously for being against them.
Ignoring the fact it is Cameron and Fallon who are behind the whole airstrikes idea and are publically (Cameron in particular) stating it is to support their allies...

The public will fall for the media bias too.
That is the sad thing.

Corbyn did reveal his Dad was from Sunderland recently.
He has mackem connections just like Sturgeon!

On a different note, has anyone seen this about the Geordie KGB spy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-34870934

I had heard of Abel, but had no idea of his local connections.

(02 Dec 2015, 10:17 am)MrFozz wrote Abel was from North Shields I think and went to Monkseaton High School, I think Mr Abel Sr. was running from Tsarists in the early 20th Century, Tom Hanks' new film is a decent film, worth a watch if your into things like that, The Bridge of Spies, it is about the Hollow Nickel Case and the shootdown of Francis Gary Powers U2 over Sverdlovsk and the efforts of Tom Hanks' character to initiate a spy swap at Gleinicke Bridge in Berlin.

When it comes to this area, at one time wasn't this area so socialist in there belief, that parts of the Area were called 'Little Russia' i'm sure somewhere like Chopwell got that name and that they have Karl Marx and Trotsky on there pit banner

As for the air strikes, personally, I am for them, and I am pleased Labour have a free vote rather than being whipped, and I am pleased we have a parliament of elected representatives who have to make a vote on these issues rather than just being told the RAF going to war.

I dont like the witch hunt that the press is on against Corbyn, saying things like he is a Jihadi is not just wrong, it is completely over the top, it is wrong, nasty and seems like over the top playground bullying. It seems the way this is going the press are trying to force him out or they are trying to initiate a coup within the Labour Party to try and oust him

(02 Dec 2015, 7:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote The perspective shown on RT is totally different to the stuff put out by the print and broadcast media.

Whether the media are targeting Corbyn directly or feeding the ignorance of the public, who knows. 
Maybe it is both?
Hopefully they fail to realise the public can see between the lines and realise the daily attacks on him, are unjustified.

Cameron calling those who oppose the bombing, 'terrorist sympathisers', is where the media need to direct their attention.
That comment was disgusting.

(02 Dec 2015, 7:48 pm)Michael wrote Not taking notice of it, they act like a bunch of 5 year old's when stuff like this comes up in Parliament... shouting at each other...

Cameron was out of order, Corbyn is a idiot, who if he gets in power will destroy this country with his backwards shite. 


This is why i don't vote because the current government and their leaders are a bunch of idiots. Why?

Well during the election all they did was slag each other off, i did not once hear their proposals clearly, this was because after they would start some stupid argument over it or someone couldn't get their point across, yes its a debate but can we not have one election where they don't bicker and just tell us straight instead of bull shit, which they don't do anyway.....

(02 Dec 2015, 7:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote The perspective shown on RT is totally different to the stuff put out by the print and broadcast media.

Whether the media are targeting Corbyn directly or feeding the ignorance of the public, who knows. 
Maybe it is both?
Hopefully they fail to realise the public can see between the lines and realise the daily attacks on him, are unjustified.

Cameron calling those who oppose the bombing, 'terrorist sympathisers', is where the media need to direct their attention.
That comment was disgusting.

(02 Dec 2015, 9:00 pm)MrFozz wrote The 'Terrorist Sympathiser' was beyond disgusting, it was vile and Cameron may have lost some votes by making that comment...

Is saying that about someone not Slanderous or does Parliamentary Privilige give an MP the right to say whatever the hell they want.

I don't like Corbyn, I dont know why, I just dont, but the campaign against is getting too personal and masty, but I respect him for sticking to his guns(no pun intended) on this and not once changing his mind.

It is good that we have a Parliament that requires a vote on these issues rather a government that tells us what is happening whether we like it or not.

Cameron can't really win on this, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, it doesn't matter how the vote goes, Cameron will get it in the neck either way...

What happens next, I do not know, is it inevitable that ground force will have to be assembled and in what form would that be? UN-led, NATO Led or Arab League Led, and ultimately who are we aligned with in this?

We could argue this till were blue in the face and still not come up with a resolution to the problem

syria.jpeg (Size 456.26 KB | Downloads 20)

(02 Dec 2015, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote Get your head around that if you can.

(02 Dec 2015, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote How the heck we are supposed to have boots on the ground, I don't know.
However good the RAF are, aerial bombardment can't solve this on its own.

Too many fingers in the pies as it stands.
Us getting involved, is only going to complicate things.

(02 Dec 2015, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote Said it before, stop the fuel, stop the supply of weapons, stop the flow of money and launch a cyber offensive.
I genuinely don't think you can beat this lot via traditional means.

(02 Dec 2015, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote Say we launch a precision attack on a convoy of vehicles - that we know 100% is carrying weapons and prominent ISIS members.
What is to stop ISIS then loading the damaged vehicles with civilians and using the images as part of their propaganda?

(02 Dec 2015, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote Mind, RT have just announced that 'recently' two RAF Tornado's collided in Scotland. 
A quick google search will tell you when it actually happened.

They have also said that our precision Brimstone missiles fell off a Tornado, due to bad weather. They implied that the weather tonight could result in the missiles falling off and kill innocent civilians in Syria.
No mention of the bad landing that the aircraft had, that led to the missile detachment.

The propaganda works both ways it seems!

(02 Dec 2015, 10:31 pm)MrFozz wrote And there we have it

397-223

Full list: The Labour MPs who supported military action

Heidi Alexander, Ian Austin, Adrian Bailey, Kevin Barron, Margaret Beckett, Hilary Benn, Luciana Berger, Tom Blenkinsop, Ben Bradshaw, Chris Bryant, Alan Campbell, Jenny Chapman, Vernon Coaker, Ann Coffey, Yvette Cooper, Neil Coyle, Mary Creagh, Stella Creasy,Simon Danczuk, Wayne David, Gloria De Piero, Stephen Doughty, Jim Dowd, Michael Dugher, Angela Eagle, Maria Eagle, Louise Ellman, Frank Field, Jim Fitzpatrick, Colleen Fletcher, Caroline Flint, Harriet Harman, Margaret Hodge, George Howarth, Tristram Hunt, Dan Jarvis, Alan Johnson, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Kevan Jones, Susan Elan Jones, Liz Kendall, Dr Peter Kyle, Chris Leslie, Holly Lynch, Siobhain McDonagh,Pat McFadden, Conor McGinn, Alison McGovern, Bridget Phillipson, Jamie Reed, Emma Reynolds, Geoffrey Robinson, Joan Ryan, Lucy Powell, Ruth Smeeth, Angela Smith, John Spellar, Gisela StuartGareth Thomas, Anna Turley, Chuka Umunna, Keith Vaz, Tom Watson, Phil Wilson and John Woodcock

(02 Dec 2015, 10:16 pm)MrFozz wrote No thanks lol



I dont know, but boots will have to go in eventually to mop up, if that happened, maybe Arab League led UN style peacekeeping mission



So we cut off there fuel, arms and money, would they not find it elsewhere, if we stop the weapons would there not be another dodgy arms all too happy to flog them weapons and in Cyber attacking, would they not just jump from 1 account to the next, getting back quickly after being took offline


Why would ISIS do that, what propaganda value does that have if the World knows 100% it was an attack on a Daesh Convoy, if that was the case, what is there to stop them loading bombed out buildings in Raqqa with dead civilians


I remember something about Tornados colliding a while back, will check it out later about 18 months ago?

In a perfect world we would go drop a few bombs on the nasty daesh men, be done, go home and leave Syrian Civilians in peace...The world is not perfect and there will always be collateral damage.

It is a god awful shitty mess now...

It seems like nobody in the Middle East can deal with them, Assad certainly cannot, only the Kurds seem to have had any kind of success against Daesh.

Any diplomatic approach is out the question, they will never negotiate and they need to be stopped.

I dont fully understand it...

The amendment to block military action has just been defeated by 390 to 211

(09 Dec 2015, 12:00 pm)BusLoverMum wrote Durham are planning a household consultation on devolution for the new year
http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/7051/Household-poll-on-devolution-agreed

(09 Dec 2015, 12:00 pm)BusLoverMum wrote Durham are planning a household consultation on devolution for the new year
http://www.durham.gov.uk/article/7051/Household-poll-on-devolution-agreed

(09 Dec 2015, 8:36 pm)Adrian wrote Ian Mearns, Labour MP for Gateshead, asked a question around funding during today's PMQs. With the devolution of business rates, the combined 12 authorities will lose about £223 million a year, he reckons.

(09 Dec 2015, 7:24 pm)MrFozz wrote How would it be decided, would Devolution be started on a Consultation alone or would we get a referendum on the matter?

If we got devolution, I would like us to be able to run our own Sports Team...A North East England National Football Team along the lines of Scotland, anything would be better than the shite we call the England Team ?

Seriously what would devolution entail, would it be like Scotland or a watered version of Scottish Devolution

(21 Dec 2015, 7:55 pm)R852 PRG wrote I'm not usually one to voice my political views, but with regards to education, I'm curious as to something.

Why is it that some schools specify in their rules that members of staff must be addressed as ''Miss'' or ''Sir''? I feel that this is unnecessary for the 21st century, and that teaching staff should be addressed by their first name. I understand that it's simply a sign of respect for an authority figure, but I just don't think it's a necessity. Others may disagree of course, but it's something I always think should just be abolished from school rules. 

Personally, I'm against the usage of ''miss'' as it's sexist, or dates back to a time when women were unequal. The title dates back to a time where women would be relieved of their duties as a teacher upon marrying and becoming a ''Mrs.''. Flight attendants were similar; they would be sacked after marriage. I just don't see the point in having to address a teacher or any other superior in education by ''Miss'' or ''Sir''.