Paris attacks news coverage (MERGED)

[Major Isewater]

4 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Earlier this year post Hebdo, the French police had a mass demonstration reference all of the cuts to the police service and now Hollande has announced 15,000 more police. This says it all.

http://www.english.rfi.fr/general/20151014-french-police-sullen-and-angry-government-moves-repair-rift-authority

I saw the interview last night from a French police union official describing what his men faced in the Bataclan siege, it was harrowing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34852948

PS:- Apparently France has some 11,500 'people on interest' on what is known as S notices, Sarkozi claims if elected, he will electronically tag them all. it's impossible to watch all of them all, the problem seems to me to be Belgium's unbelievably lax attitude to these dangerous people and France struggling to cope because of cutbacks and a weak clueless president hoping he could survive without until the next election without another atrocity and claim 'the economy is improving and France is safer'.

 

 

The increase in the Police force won't have any effect until at least two years time .

These people need to be recruited and trained before they can be operational.

The critics of the government ask why this was n't implemented after the attack on Charlie Hebdo and subsequent attacks that were thankfully foiled.

[Kid in the Riot]

9 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Apparently the 'link' was that people were doing decadent things like watching live music ,football or eating and drinking in restaurants.

All these things would be banned under an ISIS Califate .

 

Was a nice quote from the friend of a French music journalist who was killed in the Bataclan who said "if IS say Paris is the capital of obscenity, then we are proud to be obscene".

[Esmond Million's Bung]

5 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

The increase in the Police force won't have any effect until at least two years time .

These people need to be recruited and trained before they can be operational.

The critics of the government ask why this was n't implemented after the attack on Charlie Hebdo and subsequent attacks that were thankfully foiled.

Surprisingly about 6/7 years ago, I spent 10 days at the Paris air show and met a lovely female Gendarme on her own guarding a VIP car park, she was in full uniform and armed with a Glock pistol and during our conversation she told me that she was 19 years old and had been a Gendarme for 6 weeks, I asked if she had any military background (sometimes a Gendarme requirement) and she replied "no, I left college 6 weeks ago and joined the Gendarmery" , bear in mind there are 4 levels of policing in France and the Gendarmery is the 3rd highest ranked.

 

[chipdawg]

20 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Yes 2 hours ago and probably still pertinent IMO to show the sort of people Corbyn is bringing into his team, to highlight how Corbyn and his team are going to be a threat to security in UK if ever elected.

1) that threat is 4 and a half years down the line, Paris and the fallout is happening now

2) if you believe a Corbyn-led government to be a threat to UK security in the future, it'd still surely best be discussed on a thread about Jeremy Corbyn

I'll be completely honest, I find hijacking a thread about Europe's worst terrorist incident for 10 years- an incident I'd argue is ongoing given today's events in Saint Denis- to wail on Jeremy Corbyn and her majesty's opposition, quite distasteful

But it's a free country (THOUGH NOT IF JEZZA COMES TO POWER EH?!) and you can post what you like, where you like

[Esmond Million's Bung]

30 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

1) that threat is 4 and a half years down the line, Paris and the fallout is happening now

2) if you believe a Corbyn-led government to be a threat to UK security in the future, it'd still surely best be discussed on a thread about Jeremy Corbyn

I'll be completely honest, I find hijacking a thread about Europe's worst terrorist incident for 10 years- an incident I'd argue is ongoing given today's events in Saint Denis- to wail on Jeremy Corbyn and her majesty's opposition, quite distasteful

But it's a free country (THOUGH NOT IF JEZZA COMES TO POWER EH?!) and you can post what you like, where you like

Well I believe it to be inextricably linked with Paris, Corbyn's stuttering interview made that so and the probability of him not allowing his MP's a free vote on the UK bombing of Syria makes it so, i'm sorry you find it distasteful, but I cannot say i'm surprised.

PS:- What is more distasteful is trying to push another 'rule' into the minds of the people who volunteer to go into incredibly dangerous situations, who only thought should be thinking about neutralising the threat of blood thirsty barbarians as quickly as possible to save as many innocent people as possible.

He should take a long close look at the BBC film of the French police union man's graphic description of the hell those men faced in the Bataclan theatre before making ill judged and ill informed comments.

 

I got into a squabble with someone a couple of pages ago so I'm as guilty as anyone

[Major Isewater]

13 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Surprisingly about 6/7 years ago, I spent 10 days at the Paris air show and met a lovely female Gendarme on her own guarding a VIP car park, she was in full uniform and armed with a Glock pistol and during our conversation she told me that she was 19 years old and had been a Gendarme for 6 weeks, I asked if she had any military background (sometimes a Gendarme requirement) and she replied "no, I left college 6 weeks ago and joined the Gendarmery" , bear in mind there are 4 levels of policing in France and the Gendarmery is the 3rd highest ranked.

 

Maybe things have changed in 6 or 7 years . I was relaying what i heard on the radio .

A recruit probably does n't need two years of training to guide the traffic .

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Maybe things have changed in 6 or 7 years . I was relaying what i heard on the radio .

A recruit probably does n't need two years of training to guide the traffic .

 

You make a valid point, what I suspect will happen is the Gendarmery will target ex military to speed up the process and most of the recruits will be local police and police nationale which will in turn free up other from the more mundane within the Gendarmery to armed response duties.

 

[BCFC Jimmer]

5 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Blame the press/media all that you want, but if in answer to a question about shoot to kill in an 'ongoing terrorist atrocity' is the one Corbyn stutteringly gave, he is the master of his own downfall and adds further credence to the question of how safe will the UK be under a labour/Corbyn led government and I shudder to imagine.

Corbyn a threat to our national security?! Have a word with yourself - what about Cameron helping to prop up a murderous dictatorship like Saudi Arabia which exports extremism that threatens our citizens? What about our continued selling of weapons to middle eastern countries that end up in the hands of terrorists? What is 'secure' about chipping away at a welfare state, the NHS and workers’ rights our ancestors fought so hard for?

The current establishment is what has caused the threats to national security in the first place.  It is actually moronic to suggest that Corbyn is a threat to our national security when it is actually everything he stands against that got us in this mess.

Your comments are so short sighted its beyond parody.  I really do despair.

 

 

 

 

 

[Aizoon]

2 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Apparently the 'link' was that people were doing decadent things like watching live music ,football or eating and drinking in restaurants.

All these things would be banned under an ISIS Califate .

 

So just what won't be banned under the caliphate? Will our only entertainment be stoning adulterers (just the female ones, obviously).

[screech]

15 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Corbyn a threat to our national security?! Have a word with yourself - what about Cameron helping to prop up a murderous dictatorship like Saudi Arabia which exports extremism that threatens our citizens? What about our continued selling of weapons to middle eastern countries that end up in the hands of terrorists? What is 'secure' about chipping away at a welfare state, the NHS and workers’ rights our ancestors fought so hard for?

The current establishment is what has caused the threats to national security in the first place.  It is actually moronic to suggest that Corbyn is a threat to our national security when it is actually everything he stands against that got us in this mess.

Your comments are so short sighted its beyond parody.  I really do despair.

And when Labour were in power it was exactly the same, so what is your point?

EMB detest all of them, so do I, he doesn't spend all of his time defending a party because they have a red/blue ribbon and therefore whatever they say he goes along with, Labour were in power for 15 years, 15 years where they had the chance to do all of those wonderful things that you and other die hards protest about, now that the Tories are in power.

They never once closed the tax loops for the wealthy and were opposed to tighter regulation of the banks, still sold weapons to those nasty regimes and were front runners in the biggest destabilising of an entire region that we see today where western hating tosspots decide they want to gun down innoncent civilians. Just for once please look at there failings when they had the chance to be this wonderful party you and others dream about, they weren't the party of spin for nothing.

[IAmNick]

6 minutes ago, screech said:

And when Labour were in power it was exactly the same, so what is your point?

EMB detest all of them, so do I, he doesn't spend all of his time defending a party because they have a red/blue ribbon and therefore whatever they say he goes along with, Labour were in power for 15 years, 15 years where they had the chance to do all of those wonderful things that you and other die hards protest about, now that the Tories are in power.

They never once closed the tax loops for the wealthy and were opposed to tighter regulation of the banks, still sold weapons to those nasty regimes and were front runners in the biggest destabilising of an entire region that we see today where western hating tosspots decide they want to gun down innoncent civilians. Just for once please look at there failings when they had the chance to be this wonderful party you and others dream about, they weren't the party of spin for nothing.

You're spot on there with that last paragraph, and that's why so many Labour (or "New Labour" as it was) voters felt so utterly duped, betrayed, and disenfranchised by that whole scenario. I don't think many current labour voters regard those years as a wonderful party - in fact I would say they are very critical of their failings in those years. But that was years ago now, surely you have to base your opinion on the current party and policy, not that when Tony Blair started in government (which was almost 20 years ago now). The nature of government is that as a party is on its way out people are angry at them - or they wouldn't be voted out. That doesn't mean you can forever point to that and say "well better never vote for them again because look what they did 20 years ago!" otherwise we'd have run out of options way before any of our lifetimes. They had the chance, they did some good things, some bad, that's just how it works as I'm sure you are aware.

You say you wont defend a party because they have a red/blue ribbon and that's your perogative, but you on the other side seem happy to attack them because of it even though many of us are hoping the current labour iteration will have little resemblance to what Tony Blair's labour turned into.

I don't imagine for a second Corbyn has all the answers, but more of the same isn't working (as you rightly said a similar policy helped perpetuate this awful mess in the first place) and I don't believe Cameron and co have any better ideas. I'm pretty sure bombing the sh*t out of the middle east again isn't going to solve anything. I'd have thought the time from the Gulf war (and probably before it too) would have taught us that!

[BCFC Jimmer]

47 minutes ago, screech said:

And when Labour were in power it was exactly the same, so what is your point?

EMB detest all of them, so do I, he doesn't spend all of his time defending a party because they have a red/blue ribbon and therefore whatever they say he goes along with, Labour were in power for 15 years, 15 years where they had the chance to do all of those wonderful things that you and other die hards protest about, now that the Tories are in power.

They never once closed the tax loops for the wealthy and were opposed to tighter regulation of the banks, still sold weapons to those nasty regimes and were front runners in the biggest destabilising of an entire region that we see today where western hating tosspots decide they want to gun down innoncent civilians. Just for once please look at there failings when they had the chance to be this wonderful party you and others dream about, they weren't the party of spin for nothing.

Sure - I agree with most of that. I had no love for the labour party back then because of all that. I joined the labour party for the first time when Corbyn was elected and I want to believe things can be different and that we can confront all these terrible injustices, some of which you mention.

If it doesn't work out and Corbyn fails then so be it. But at least for once, I will be fighting for a genuinely different way of doing things. Whatever happens, the stick he is getting is completly out of order.

If your faith in politicans is completely lost then that fine, i can understand that. 

 

 

[cityexile]

7 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

With Jeremy Cordyn attending last nights England v France game, I was waiting for the Sun or Mail's front page today.

im genuinely astounded that it wasn't .........,

Evil communist traitor soldier hater doesnt sing la marsaillaise loud enough to hear on TV.

 

Whilst it is becoming a parody of itself, sadly you just did not look closely enough, was clearly the best they could come up with,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3323396/Nature-calls-Corbyn-misses-Wembley-ovation-French-players-final-whistle-needed-loo.html

 

[...]

Without wishing to trivialise this human tragedy, can I check if anyone has bothered to mention Lee Johnson so far?

 

I'll get me coat.

 

 

Uncle TFR

[screech]

58 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Sure - I agree with most of that. I had no love for the labour party back then because of all that. I joined the labour party for the first time when Corbyn was elected and I want to believe things can be different and that we can confront all these terrible injustices, some of which you mention.

If it doesn't work out and Corbyn fails then so be it. But at least for once, I will be fighting for a genuinely different way of doing things. Whatever happens, the stick he is getting is completly out of order.

If your faith in politicans is completely lost then that fine, i can understand that.

All not lost, I would say that Corbyn is the best thing that has happened to Labour for donkeys, I agree with a lot of the old style Labour values, anti Eu, Nuclear free, government on side with British workers and protecting industries, unfortunately it's not all rosey, but it's better than a Blair/Brown labour where it just wasn't Labour and a lot of Red sheep went to vote for it where they previously wouldn't have been seen dead backing that.

New Labour is riddled with Tory Lite still and are desperately underming the peoples choice for leader, completely shitty way of doing things and if they oust him, I can't see them ever recovering from it. But where he is wrong and it should be said is you do not have a hope in hell of ever negotiating with these lunatics, you need to bomb these people so all what is left of them is a brief mention in a history book.

[CiderHider]

Corbyn needs a smash in the face. Possibly more dangerous than ISIS.  

 

I wonder at what point if UK was ever under attack he would fight back?   What a slug of a human.

[BCFC Jimmer]

1 hour ago, CiderHider said:

Corbyn needs a smash in the face. Possibly more dangerous than ISIS.  

 

I wonder at what point if UK was ever under attack he would fight back?   What a slug of a human.

You are either fishing, unable to read or incredibly stupid! 

If you are serious I highly doubt you will be able to back up your statements with an actual argument.

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

3 hours ago, Collis1 said:

Corbyn a threat to our national security?! Have a word with yourself - what about Cameron helping to prop up a murderous dictatorship like Saudi Arabia which exports extremism that threatens our citizens? What about our continued selling of weapons to middle eastern countries that end up in the hands of terrorists? What is 'secure' about chipping away at a welfare state, the NHS and workers’ rights our ancestors fought so hard for?

The current establishment is what has caused the threats to national security in the first place.  It is actually moronic to suggest that Corbyn is a threat to our national security when it is actually everything he stands against that got us in this mess.

Your comments are so short sighted its beyond parody.  I really do despair.

 

 

 

 

 

Can we not be against all this nonsense, AND excessive amounts of 3rd world immigration, rendering swathes of our cities as ghettoes?

[cityexile]

Hopefully wherever we sit on the political spectrum, we can agree this is moving. An open letter to the murderer of his wife.

 

On Friday night you stole the life of an exceptional being, the love of my life, the mother of my son, but you won't have my hatred.
I don't know who you are and I don't want to know - you are dead souls. If this God for which you kill indiscriminately made us in his own image, every bullet in the body of my wife will have been a wound in his heart.
So no, I don't give you the gift of hating you. You are asking for it but responding to hatred with anger would be giving in to the same ignorance that made you what you are. 
You want me to be afraid, to view my fellow countrymen with mistrust, to sacrifice my freedom for security.You have lost.
I saw her this morning. Finally, after many nights and days of waiting. She was just as beautiful as when she left on Friday night, just as beautiful as when I fell hopelessly in love over 12 years ago. 
Of course I'm devastated with grief, I admit this small victory, but it will be short-lived. I know she will accompany us every day and that we will find ourselves in this paradise of free souls to which you'll never have access.
We are two, my son and I, but we are stronger than all the armies of the world. 
I don't have any more time to devote to you, I have to join Melvil who is waking up from his nap. He is barely 17-months-old. He will eat his meals as usual, and then we are going to play as usual, and for his whole life this little boy will threaten you by being happy and free. Because no, you will not have his hatred either.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 hours ago, Collis1 said:

Corbyn a threat to our national security?! Have a word with yourself - what about Cameron helping to prop up a murderous dictatorship like Saudi Arabia which exports extremism that threatens our citizens? What about our continued selling of weapons to middle eastern countries that end up in the hands of terrorists? What is 'secure' about chipping away at a welfare state, the NHS and workers’ rights our ancestors fought so hard for?

The current establishment is what has caused the threats to national security in the first place.  It is actually moronic to suggest that Corbyn is a threat to our national security when it is actually everything he stands against that got us in this mess.

Your comments are so short sighted its beyond parody.  I really do despair.

 

 

 

 

 

You can despair all you want flower, as screech said several months ago some people would vote for a dog turd if had a red rosette on it, I really don't give a flying ****.

A stuttering embarrassing interview, a statement contradicting that embarrassing interview purely designed to extricate Corbyn from the brown stuff and a new appointment of another tired/failed labour politician who immediately hurls an unbelievable tirade belittling mental health issues against of his new colleagues he refuses to apologise, saying he was rude to me and I was rude to him i'm from South London it's what we do, he initially ignores Corbyn about offering an apology childishly saying he should apologise to me first and eventually issues an apology but the undertone is 'I don't think I did anything wrong'. 24 hours in the life of the labour party.

The highlighted portion is strange, who are you talking about when you say 'the current establishment'?, because last time I looked Tony Blair was no longer part of the current establishment, you again throw out your usual offerings of insults to people who have a different view to you (obviously trained by Livingstone), but I will make my view clearer Corbyn is a potential threat to national security in the unlikely event that he is elected.

 

[Lanterne Rouge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34859527

 

Note the comment in the article about Boko Haram being the deadliest militant group in the world with 6644 killings. It surely is a frightening world.

[cityexile]

And in a slightly lighter note, if that is possible (as guilty as anyone...)

http://newsthump.com/2015/11/15/absolutely-everyone-suddenly-an-expert-on-how-to-defeat-isis/

[JM91]

5 hours ago, Collis1 said:

Corbyn a threat to our national security?! Have a word with yourself - what about Cameron helping to prop up a murderous dictatorship like Saudi Arabia which exports extremism that threatens our citizens? What about our continued selling of weapons to middle eastern countries that end up in the hands of terrorists? What is 'secure' about chipping away at a welfare state, the NHS and workers’ rights our ancestors fought so hard for?

The current establishment is what has caused the threats to national security in the first place.  It is actually moronic to suggest that Corbyn is a threat to our national security when it is actually everything he stands against that got us in this mess.

Your comments are so short sighted its beyond parody.  I really do despair.

Oh my word you're stupid.

[IAmNick]

39 minutes ago, JM91 said:

Oh my word you're stupid.

What a compelling argument.

Some people here who post in these kind of threads I rarely agree with (Big Brother and EMB for example) but I respect their opinions as they at least argue them, or can back them up with a reasoned debate - pointless name calling like that is just unhelpful though. If you disagree you should say why, not just call people stupid or imply they are still at university as you have been.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

5 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

What a compelling argument.

Some people here who post in these kind of threads I rarely agree with (Big Brother and EMB for example) but I respect their opinions as they at least argue them, or can back them up with a reasoned debate - pointless name calling like that is just unhelpful though. If you disagree you should say why, not just call people stupid or imply they are still at university as you have been.

I agree, but I have to ask is that condemnation for Collis as well?, many of his posts contain personal insults.

[JM91]

3 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

What a compelling argument.

Some people here who post in these kind of threads I rarely agree with (Big Brother and EMB for example) but I respect their opinions as they at least argue them, or can back them up with a reasoned debate - pointless name calling like that is just unhelpful though. If you disagree you should say why, not just call people stupid or imply they are still at university as you have been.

you're confusing my comments on someones conclusions and comments on someones reasoning.

someone with a ridiculous argument based on platitudes is, frankly, stupid.  This is true regardless of whether someone makes the same conclusion as yourself.

It would be like me saying socialism started this issue because Labour intervened in Iraq and they are left wing.  That would be stupid reasoning and should be called as such, regardless of whether your opinion lies on the same or opposing 'side' of the political spectrum.

[IAmNick]

57 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I agree, but I have to ask is that condemnation for Collis as well?, many of his posts contain personal insults.

Sure. I just think it's a shame that's all as there's often a somewhat decent debate going on here.

56 minutes ago, JM91 said:

you're confusing my comments on someones conclusions and comments on someones reasoning.

someone with a ridiculous argument based on platitudes is, frankly, stupid.  This is true regardless of whether someone makes the same conclusion as yourself.

It would be like me saying socialism started this issue because Labour intervened in Iraq and they are left wing.  That would be stupid reasoning and should be called as such, regardless of whether your opinion lies on the same or opposing 'side' of the political spectrum.

Fair enough, although I don't think Collis (or Corbyn's) argument is ridiculous or based on platitudes though.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe, and what I think Collis was saying is that our current strategy (from both before and during the Blair years, and more recently) has clearly not worked. The areas we've intervened in in the middle east are worse than ever, and causing both them (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) and us continuing "problems" that only seem to growing. Corbyn's suggestions are running counter to that, and to me he sounds like a voice of reason compared to another "WELL LETS BOMB THE SH*T OUTTA THEM THEN THAT'LL TEACH 'EM", which has done nothing but perpetuate the problem for us, and 99% of the poor b*astards over there currently living in hell. I think implying Corbyn loves terrorists, is a threat to our security, hates the armed forces (whatever that means), hates the country (whatever that means) etc. is nothing more than rhetoric and hyperbole, and in fact doing his arguments or reasoning an injustice. He's saying suggesting Corbyn is a threat to our national security is strange - because the current policies have helped create that threat and perpetuate it in the first place, and Corbyn runs counter to many of them, which sounds like a reasonable argument to me.

I can't help feeling even if we do "defeat" ISIS, although how you would quantify that I'm not even sure, if we do it by levelling Syria/Iraq and co for at least the third time in living memory all we're going to do is alienate and disenfranchise the same people ISIS would have recruited, and in five years time we'll be back in this situation again.

As I said, I certainly don't believe he (Corbyn) has all the answers, but the current ones we as a country pursue such as hell aren't working, so it's at the least refreshing, and in my opinion quite interesting/compelling to hear a change coming from someone who is actually in a position to be listened to.

[BCFC Jimmer]

8 hours ago, JM91 said:

you're confusing my comments on someones conclusions and comments on someones reasoning.

someone with a ridiculous argument based on platitudes is, frankly, stupid.  This is true regardless of whether someone makes the same conclusion as yourself.

It would be like me saying socialism started this issue because Labour intervened in Iraq and they are left wing.  That would be stupid reasoning and should be called as such, regardless of whether your opinion lies on the same or opposing 'side' of the political spectrum.

Oh my word, I would be interested in which part of my post you think are platitudes.

The unrest in the middle east has been going on for decades. The west has to take a large proportion of the blame because whenever we have intervened - selling weapons, installing dictators, taking their resources etc - has perpetuated the problem. 

Much of this was due to the implemetation of free market economics across the western world, NOT socialism. The problem with free market economics is that it puts profit before principles which is why I find it so offensive. It doesn't care about the poor, climate change, or solving world peace because the whole system is based on making as much cash as possible. Hence why American and British weapon companies continue to export weapons to unstable dictatorships that are ending up in the hands of terroists. Essentially, our own greed has played a part in creating this calamity across the entire middle east and consequently migration and terroism.

Jeremy Corbyn is a hero for sticking it to the man and offering people a true alternative to undo the damage the free market is doing. What we are seeing from the press and politicians  is a coordinated assult on him because he threatens the very 'establishment' they rely on. 

As IAmNick put it, to ridicule and mock Corbyn completly undermines his arguments which is bad for democracy.  I just find it a bit sad to be honest.

 

 

[JM91]

13 minutes ago, Collis1 said:

Oh my word, I would be interested in which part of my post you think are platitudes.

The unrest in the middle east has been going on for decades. The west has to take a large proportion of the blame because whenever we have intervened - selling weapons, installing dictators, taking their resources etc - has perpetuated the problem. 

Much of this was due to the implemetation of free market economics across the western world, NOT socialism. The problem with free market economics is that it puts profit before principles which is why I find it so offensive. It doesn't care about the poor, climate change, or solving world peace because the whole system is based on making as much cash as possible. Hence why American and British weapon companies continue to export weapons to unstable dictatorships that are ending up in the hands of terroists. Essentially, our own greed has played a part in creating this calamity across the entire middle east.

Jeremy Corbyn is a hero for sticking it to the man and offering people a true alternative to undo the damage the free market is doing. What we are seeing from the press is a coordinated assult on him because he threatens the very 'establishment' they rely on. 

As IAmNick put it, to ridicule and mock Corbyn completly undermines his arguments which is bad for democracy.  I just find it a bit sad to be honest.

you're endless use of platitutes has been put in bold for your attention.

You're one of those people who thinks Corbyn can do no wrong, thankfully the majority see him as the petty, small minded bigot that he is.

[BCFC Jimmer]

2 minutes ago, JM91 said:

you're endless use of platitutes has been put in bold for your attention.

You're one of those people who thinks Corbyn can do no wrong, thankfully the majority see him as the petty, small minded bigot that he is.

Shut the door on the way out yeah?