Andrew Mitchell has quit as government chief whip after weeks of pressure over an argument with police officers in Downing Street. The Tory MP has admitted swearing at officers in the incident but again denied calling police "plebs".

He told David Cameron - who has stood by him - that "damaging publicity" meant he could no longer do his job. Commons leader Sir George Young will be the new chief whip, Downing Street said.

Mr Mitchell's resignation is a victory for the Police Federation and Labour who have led calls for him to go. But it spells the end of a 25 year political career for the Sutton Coldfield MP, who was promoted from international development secretary to chief whip in September's cabinet reshuffle.

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said Mr Mitchell told the prime minister about his decision in person, at Mr Cameron's country residence Chequers.

The prime minister has accepted his resignation.

Artful Dodger: Yeah, it's lucky that 12 year old had a gun, cuz if that guy got in and raped her, many would want her to keep the rapists baby

The truth behind this politically charged issue has been uncovered! How should Obama deal with this new information so close to election day?

Thank God for guns

Looks like Romney is ahead in the polls. But what matters is the swing States.

Iamon lyme: "I'm looking forward to an honest reply."

You were talking to me... or was it Harvey? Ya know.. the big white pooka who befriended Elwood P. Dowd

Great film!!

(V): "I'm looking forward to an honest reply."

[ I've answered your questions but you are not lis-ten-ing. ]

Look again. I did not say I'm looking forward to an honest reply from you.

The period from 1970 through 1972 saw an explosion of political violence in Northern Ireland, peaking in 1972, when nearly 500 people, just over half of them civilians, lost their lives. The year 1972 saw the greatest loss of life throughout the entire conflict.[64]

In Derry by the end of 1971, 29 barricades were in place to block access to what was known as Free Derry; 16 of them impassable even to the British Army's one-ton armoured vehicles.[65] Many of the nationalist/republican "no-go areas" were controlled by one of the two factions of the Irish Republican Army—the Provisional IRA and Official IRA.

There are several reasons why violence escalated in these years.

Unionists claim the main reason was the formation of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (Provisional IRA), a group formed when the IRA split into the Provisional and Official factions. While the older IRA had embraced non-violent civil agitation,[66] the new Provisional IRA was determined to wage "armed struggle" against British rule in Northern Ireland. The new IRA was willing to take on the role of "defenders of the Catholic community",[67] rather than seeking working-class unity across both communities which had become the aim of the "Officials".

Nationalists pointed to a number of events in these years to explain the upsurge in violence. One such incident was the Falls Curfew in July 1970, when 3,000 troops imposed a curfew on the nationalist Lower Falls area of Belfast, firing more than 1,500 rounds of ammunition in gun battles with the IRA and killing four people. Another was the 1971 introduction of internment without trial (out of over 350 initial detainees, none was a Protestant).[68] Moreover, due to poor intelligence,[69] very few of those interned were actually republican activists, but some went on to become republicans as a result of their experience.[citation needed] Between 1971 and 1975, 1,981 people were detained; 1,874 were Catholic/republican, while 107 were Protestant/loyalist.[70] There were widespread allegations of abuse and even torture of detainees,[71][72] and the "five techniques" used by the police and army for interrogation were ruled to be illegal following a British government inquiry.[73] Nationalists also point to the fatal shootings of 14 unarmed nationalist civil rights demonstrators by the British Army in Derry on 30 January 1972, on what became known as Bloody Sunday. The Provisional IRA (or "Provos", as they became known), which emerged out of a split in the Irish Republican Army in December 1969, soon established itself as defenders of the nationalist community.[74][75] Despite the increasingly reformist and Marxist politics of the Official IRA, it began its own armed campaign in reaction to the ongoing violence. The Provisional IRA's offensive campaign began in early 1971 when the Army Council sanctioned attacks on the British Army.[76]

In 1972, the Provisional IRA killed approximately 100 soldiers, wounded 500 more and carried out approximately 1,300 bombings,[77] mostly against commercial targets which they considered "the artificial economy".[78][79] The bombing campaign killed many civilians, notably on Bloody Friday on 21 July, when 22 bombs were set off in the centre of Belfast killing seven civilians and two soldiers. The Official IRA, which had never been fully committed to armed action, called off its campaign in May 1972.[80] Despite a temporary ceasefire in 1972 and talks with British officials, the Provisionals were determined to continue their campaign until the achievement of a united Ireland.

Merlyn Rees, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had lifted the proscription against the UVF in April 1974. In December, one month after the Birmingham pub bombings which killed 21 people, the IRA declared a ceasefire; this would theoretically last throughout most of the following year. The ceasefire notwithstanding, sectarian killings actually escalated in 1975, along with internal feuding between rival paramilitary groups. This made 1975 one of the "bloodiest years of the conflict".[86] On 31 July 1975 at Buskhill, outside Newry, the popular Irish cabaret band "The Miami Showband" was returning home to Dublin after a gig in Banbridge when it was ambushed by gunmen from the UVF Mid-Ulster Brigade wearing British Army uniforms at a bogus military roadside checkpoint on the main A1 road. Three of the bandmembers were shot dead and two of the UVF men were killed when the bomb they had loaded onto the band's minibus went off prematurely. The following January, ten Protestant workers were gunned down in Kingsmill, south County Armagh after having been ordered off their bus by an armed Republican gang who called itself the South Armagh Republican Action Force. These killings were in retaliation to a loyalist double shooting attack against the Reavey and O'Dowd families the previous night.

The violence continued through the rest of the 1970s. The British Government reinstated the ban against the UVF in October 1975, making it once more an illegal organisation. When the Provisional IRA's December 1974 ceasefire had ended in early 1976 and it had returned to violence, it had lost the hope that it had felt in the early 1970s that it could force a rapid British withdrawal from Northern Ireland, and instead developed a strategy known as the "Long War", which involved a less intense but more sustained campaign of violence that could continue indefinitely. The Official IRA ceasefire of 1972, however, became permanent, and the "Official" movement eventually evolved into the Workers' Party, which rejected violence completely. A splinter from the "Officials", however, in 1974 – the Irish National Liberation Army — continued with a campaign of violence.

The IRA's "Long War" was boosted by large donations of arms to them from Libya in the 1980s (see Provisional IRA arms importation) due to Muammar Gaddafi's anger at Thatcher's government for assisting the Reagan government's bombing of Tripoli, which had allegedly killed one of Gaddafi's children.

The IRA continued its bombing campaign. One of its most high profile actions was the Brighton hotel bombing on 12 October 1984, when it set off a 100-pound bomb in the Grand Hotel, Brighton, where politicians including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher were staying for the Conservative Party conference. Five people were killed, including Conservative MP Sir Anthony Berry and the wife of Government Chief Whip John Wakeham, and thirty-four others were injured, including Wakeham, Trade and Industry Secretary Norman Tebbit and Tebbit's wife, Margaret.[91]

In the mid to late 1980s loyalist paramilitaries, including the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and Ulster Resistance, imported arms and explosives from South Africa.[92] The weapons obtained were divided between the UDA, the UVF and Ulster Resistance, and led to an escalation in the assassination of Catholics, although some of the weaponry (such as rocket-propelled grenades) were hardly used.[citation needed] These killings were in response to the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement which gave the Irish government a "consultative role" in the internal government of Northern Ireland.

Iamon lyme: Who says Liberals are wanting to offend Islamists? Who says Liberals are wanting to offend Christians? All I hear is a martyrdom for christianity and it's weak and cannot handle what people may say or do.. or at least, you can't. That Jesus said is your problem. The dude himself tended to be of a less fragile nature.

"I'm looking forward to an honest reply."

I've answered your questions but you are not lis-ten-ing.

That you hold no respect for Islam or don't understand how we 'liberals' ... ... Is this like Dogma and how Kevin Smith was threatened with death because he made the film by Christians? Peace loving God.. ... hang on... can't say God. Have to say G-d. This post might get erased in time!!

btw.. can you define a liberal, so I don't get confused over what is and what is not as it is differently defined over here.. Guess peace loving Christians trying to blow up Parliament and Maggie as well as various pubs, restaurants and other places, killing thousands... gives you a different perspective nationally. Having terrorists attacking your country for decades just may mean I see things differently to you and have that right.

This was said 6 months after I was born..

"From this day, we declare war against the IRA and its splinter groups. Known IRA men will be executed mercilessly and without hesitation. Less extreme measures will be taken against anyone sheltering or helping them, but if they persist in giving them aid, then more extreme methods will be adopted . . . we solemnly warn the authorities to make no more speeches of appeasement. We are heavily armed Protestants dedicated to this cause."

(V): I can see how that question might be misinterpreted, so I will rephrase it:


1) Why are liberals afraid to offend Islamists?

2) Why are liberals not afraid to offend Christians?


Again, you said "..lets be correct instead of over dramatic."

I'm looking forward to an honest reply.

(V): Why are liberals afraid of offending Islamists but not afraid of offending Christians?

You said "..lets be correct instead of over dramatic." Does that mean I can look forward to seeing an honest answer to the above question?

(V): [ That you are saying those who attacked and do attack are peace loving is contradictory.. ]

No, what I'm saying (the meaning of what I said) is the behavior of liberals is contradictory.

Iamon lyme: Right, lets be correct instead of over dramatic. I have nothing to fear from peace loving people of any religion. That you are saying those who attacked and do attack are peace loving is contradictory.. They are militants.. but just those.

Just like in Northern Ireland. Catholics were shooting at and blowing up us and the loyalists, Protestants were shooting and blowing up the Catholics. Most wanted peace, hence the peace talks and an end to the war.... BAR a few individuals who still are fighting as an IRA splinter group or as a loyalist splinter group.

I'm aware that maybe one of those splinter groups could get a bright idea and bomb somewhere I goto, some white supremacist could go on a bombing spree, some terrorist... sorry, lets be correct.. one of these terrorist groups as well as another group such as some Al Qaeda aligned group or individual could go on a killing spree.

Some other Terrorist group could play 'up', as there are many various 'disputes' in Europe and the old Soviet block and many different groups on the watch list.

Rich bored kids with a university education, but psychotic. They use to be the one to look out for.. rebelled against 'mummy and daddy' and off and joined some freedom cause.

... Instead I just go on as normal. Except for that one time I was working in London and there was an IRA bomb scare. We got stuck for 2 hours waiting for the all clear!!

(V): [ .. ok, you say a cross in urine is bad... ]

Didn't say that either.


You said "We make the sign of a cross as a joke.."

So I said "...now I'm supposed to believe liberals feel free to make fun of violent hateful Christians, but fear reprisal from peace loving Islamists? This seems somewhat contradictory in light of what liberals have been saying of both religions."

How hard can it be to respond to what is actually being said?

Iamon lyme: Sometimes the full facts just don't come out all at once.. There were several things going on at the same time it that town on the same day!

Did all the details on who/what/why come out regarding the 9/11 in the first week? No, they didn't.

"[ You want special privileges for Christianity here.. ] Didn't say that."

Ok.. what then? You want God to stop talking to you? The Bible says everything is of God and only our 'human' perception stops us seeing what 'He' is saying? As Stephen Fry points out.. even the stuff we see as really bad.

(V): [ You want special privileges for Christianity here.. ]

Didn't say that.

(V): [ Did you read/see/hear that last bit anywhere? ]

Yes, I did. Did you read/see/hear how our (not your) president lied about what caused the Benghazi attack? I remember seeing something about that at this (the politics) board. My memory is sometimes faulty and I could be wrong, so I will do a word search to see if anyone here mentioned it or not.

Iamon lyme: Didn't say that.

I said if you behave hateful here, it does not matter what religion you are. Christian, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Jedi, Scientologist, Wiccan, Druid, Satanist, Atheist, Zen, Rastafarian, or any other ist or ian you can think of.

You want special privileges for Christianity here.. get a position within the CoE high clergy and prove you are fit to be a member of the "House of Lords".

(V): So now I'm supposed to believe liberals feel free to make fun of violent hateful Christians, but fear reprisal from peace loving Islamists? This seems somewhat contradictory in light of what liberals have been saying of both religions.

I must have forgotten how different things are for you ... and how different your laws are from ours. *cough* Nevertheless( or alwaysthemore) the ideology and reasoning of liberalism there sounds identical to the liberalism here. This is just an observation, nothing to get defensive about. This isn't a game of dodge ball unless that is what you want it to be.

Iamon lyme: Yes, but I include responsibility with that freedom.

"then why do liberals applaud that freedom when Christians are criticised and defamed, but deplore it when Islam is treated with the same lack of respect?"

If (here in the UK) a Church, Synagogue, Temple, etc is attacked, they are all treated the same by the police and get the same equal rights when it comes to any problems.

"They choose who deserves that freedom and who doesn't according to their own beliefs, and demonstrate it by their actions. If you don't think this is what has been happening then you haven't been paying attention,"

Again, I have to go by the UK laws.. everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they want, as long as they don't use it to commit any crimes, or expect their 'church' to be above UK law. If (like with that Islamic cleric now extradited to the US) they start spewing what our UK law states is hate speech, then they will have to answer for it.

"Who was arrested and hauled off to jail in the middle of the night for placing a crucifix in a jar of urine and displaying it at an art gallery? No one."

It's not specified in the Bible as being a holy object like The Koran says about Muhammed. I'm use to a country where "Jesus Christ" is an expression and the name of Logos. We make the sign of a cross as a joke when it comes to things like.. bad farts, or making fun of someones bad make up idea!!

If someone wanted to here, they could go to the police on any desecration, they could also take it to a civil court. But a case HAS TO BE PROVEN.

.. ok, you say a cross in urine is bad... I would like to know what the artist meant before I could say it was. Sorry, but urine is one of those strange bodily fluids that can be seen as good or bad depending on your situation or what you know. Watching the likes of Bear Grylls it is a drinkable liquid, others say it cures athletes food and is still taught to soldiers as a 'trick'.

As to those militants who attacked the consulate, Libyan protestors have driven them out of their compound and torched it...

"The trigger for the assault on the paramilitaries was a "Save Benghazi" protest after the main weekly Muslim prayers on Friday that was joined by some 30,000 peaceful demonstrators. It drowned out a smaller rally attended by just a few hundred people called by the jihadists and hardline Islamists angry over a US-made film that mocks Islam and cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published by a French magazine.

Demonstrators paid tribute to Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans killed in the September 11 assault on the US consulate in the city that Washington now says was a "terrorist" attack.

"Libya lost a friend," read one banner. "We want justice for Stevens," said another.

Jihadist militants of Ansar al-Sharia fired in the air as they retreated from their headquarters in the face of the overwhelmingly superior numbers of the protesters."

>>>>> Did you read/see/hear that last bit anywhere?

SL-Mark: And google, plus a few others.

The Col: Well it now replaces my mental note on the nearest we got to M.A.D.

.. I thought the one when a Russian officer had to decide on whether the satellites were right in telling him the US had launched a pre-emptive strike or not, was the closest. Luckily he decided they were wrong (as they were)....

Artful Dodger: It made me laugh too... brevity is the soul of wit.

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: I see your point.

.

(V): My point is if freedom of expression is something we both agree about, then why do liberals applaud that freedom when Christians are criticised and defamed, but deplore it when Islam is treated with the same lack of respect?

I don't disagree with you in principle, I'm only pointing out how liberals don't seem to believe freedom of expression applies to everyone. In principle, yes. In practice, no. They choose who deserves that freedom and who doesn't according to their own beliefs, and demonstrate it by their actions. If you don't think this is what has been happening then you haven't been paying attention, or you agree with the nonuniform application of freedom as practiced by liberal politicians and pundits.

Who was arrested and hauled off to jail in the middle of the night for placing a crucifix in a jar of urine and displaying it at an art gallery? No one. But someone who disrespected Islam in a stupid video was arrested and hauled off in the middle of the night and is currently sitting in jail. Why? Because the president didn't want to take responsibility for ignoring a request for more security for an upcoming attack that had nothing to do with that video.

It wasn't just a stupid maneuver, it was a lazy quick fix that will probably do more to inflame Islamic hatred for us than to sooth them. They are not idiots, even they know the video had nothing to do with an attack they had been planning for months to be carried out on or near September 11th. Honestly, how hard would it be for someone to find a youtube video that could insult anyone?

(V): Same with facebook.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/10/facebook-uk-taxes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/tax-biggest-us-companies-uk

(V): That was a great example of bipartisan politics.Kennedy consulted with Eisenhower and Truman.The conversations are available online

Starbucks UK is confused. It's telling the tax man it's not making a profit, yet telling investors it's making a good profit.

Interesting (and frightening) to hear how close the Cuban missile crises nearly ended up irradiating the world.

I heard today that a Soviet diesel submarine was submerged off the Cuban coast, while the US navy were playing nearby. The captain decided when they were nearly out of air to go out with a bang and fire the nuclear tipped torpedo they were carrying.

Luckily the crew sided behind his second in command, and decided it was not a good idea. The Captain was removed from command of the submarine.

It's the kinda fact that drives a person to be a drink short of being sober as described by Terry Pratchett regarding Captain Vimes.

The Col: Obama got his cojones in gear.

.. If he hadn't, I'd have to get someone to give him an "Archie"

Iamon lyme: Yes. You've decided that Christians can be insulted by liberals.

You were not born with that thought. Jesus does not teach that thought. God certainly cannot be affected by any critical analysis of the ol' Elohim... Further more as God is beyond religion.. Elohim is not Christian.

So what exactly is it that hurts Christians (in your mind) that is being said?

Can you give an example??

Artful Dodger: I know, and it's not unlikely Obama paid more in taxes this year because he had more taxable income than Romney. Being wealthy doesn't mean you should have to pay taxes on the same income you've already paid taxes on. You are not taxed on the income you made and paid 10 years ago, or 9 years ago, or 8... you are taxed according to how much you made this year. Obama is not some poor struggling middle class worker, he's a wealthy man. It continues to amaze me who Obama is trying to impress with dumb statements like that.

Iamon lyme: Romney should ask him how much he gave in charity. Romney gave millions. When Romney inherited his father's estate, he gave away all the money. And when governor, he gave his salary back to the State. Same when he ran the Olympics. He's extremely generous.

Artful Dodger: I'm not sure because I was in another room when I heard it, but I think I heard Obama say he paid more in taxes than Romney. If that is what he said, was he complaining or bragging?

Iamon lyme: tomorrow the pundits all jockey for position on the many polls. I think this debate may be a draw but fact checking could decide it too

Artful Dodger: I started watching it on tv, then switched to listening to it on the radio. Obama was more aggressive this time. I knew he would be, he had to after learning he did not win the first debate... that still cracks me up, someone had to tell him he did not win the first one. After the debate all I heard from the commentators is that he won this debate. Except for Ann Compton, she said she would reserve judgement until after the next debate.

One other interesting thing happened... when the moderator brought up Hillary saying it was her responsibility and not Obamas (for not providing proper security when it was asked for) Obama said no... she works for me, so it's my responsibility. I think Hillary is already trying to look presidential, because it's likely she will want to run for president in 2016. Obama taking that hot potato back and saying it belongs to him was I think a knee jerk reaction, even though everyone knows the blame will inevitably fall into someone elses lap.

Iamon lyme: Obama looked better this time and I'll bet many pundunts call it a draw. But a draw is better for Obama. I am busy trying to fix my taxes which were due yesterday (extension) but I screwed up. lol So only watched a small segment.

I listened to most of the debate. So now I've learned Obama believes the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack... period. No spontaneous eruption of violence during a protest over a video no one knew about until he, the president, told us about it. No, the day after the attack he said it was a terrorist attack and has always maintained it was a terrorist attack. So after two weeks of suffering through listening to him talk about how the violence and killings were because of a video... well, apparently that never happened. I've been asleep for two weeks dreaming about some stupid video, but today I woke and am now getting the straight scoop. Right.

And it's also apparent the president hasn't yet figured out that big bird is not really a bird. Or maybe he doesn't want to break the hearts of all those five year olds listening to the debate by telling them big bird is only an actor in a bird costume. But it does beg the question, Mr President... how many five year olds do you believe listening to the debate can be persuaded to vote for you in a few weeks, seeing as how they are only five years old?

(V): You had a point?

AD was right, it is easier to be a liberal. I've been working too hard at this, when all I really need to do is to randomly type words onto a page. And they will with no effort from me or anyone else randomly self organize into the same brilliant analysis you are able to achieve with eyes closed and mind preoccupied by thoughts of splendicious grandeur. That's my theory about house work, but it hadn't occurred to me until you hadn't mentioned it that this is actually a universal truth. It's how we evolved from lower forms of life and then de-evolved into liberals... not all of us, but some of us have. I did too until I didn't.

The perfect example of this principle in action is house work. I don't need to do anything, because aside from the fact that any work is offensive and no should have to listen to anyone tell them they need to work at anything, including making sense at a game site message board, everything will eventually self organize... the clutter will disappear and everthing will become clean, and every item I have will eventually through nothing more than the random forces of nature be located precisely where it should be. In fact, I could speed up the process by merely wanting everything to be as and where it already is.

What could be easier than that?

Iamon lyme: Wow.. such drama..

"If making offensive remarks against religion is such a bad thing, then why do liberals go out of their way to lie about and make offensive remarks and materials against Christians?"

Who says they are offensive?

You just basically made my point valid.

Thankyou

(V): Compared to what? Making it illegal for girls to get an education? You have a little girl in your country right now, to protect her from further harm by people who tried to kill her as she was walking to school. How does that compare to the freedom to express yourself... which by the way happens to be a freedom you've already made it clear you support. Are you suggesting such freedom should be limited to only you and the people you agree with?

How are able to take a position one day, and the next day you are against that same position?

If making offensive remarks against religion is such a bad thing, then why do liberals go out of their way to lie about and make offensive remarks and materials against Christians?

Iamon lyme: Making offensive material regarding another religion is a liberty that needs to be kept? Burning flags, bibles, Korans??