Well, he's gone. Hounded out of office by a baying media who are or at least seem to be, anti-Christian. A politician who has done more than almost any other to promote the rights of the lgtg lobby but made the mistake of being a Christian. I've said it before, if a candidate came forward from the Muslim community I wonder if the same fate would befall him?
Didn't agree with his take on Brexit or to be honest many of his proposals but I'd go for a pint with him anyway!

Farron wasn't "hounded out of office" for being a Christian, he stood down from leadership of his party because his prurient religious fundamentalism was so painfully incompatible with leadership of a party that positions itself as tolerant and liberal. It's a funny old thing, but Farron obsess over that verse in Matthew about marriage in the Old Testement tradition being between a man and a woman and he feels so very strongly about how other people should be living their lives in response to that passing comment by Christ, but he doesn't appear to have taken any personal responsibility and given all of his possessions away and that was the thrust of what Christ was saying.

Is that shirt polycotton?

Still a better man than that pseudo Marxist you swoon after.

"During the campaign, he was asked repeatedly in media interviews to clarify his views on gay sex"

Poor old Timmy. Christianity is incompatible with politics these days. Should have coverted. Would have been fine then.

Who will be the next leader?

I didn't vote for Mr Farron but admire him for sticking to his Christian principals. No Christian gets everything right, they just do their best to follow Christ.
So Simon 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'

That was my take on it too. He certainly wasn't hounded out. Perhaps he'll join the DUP?

Is it? What is compatible with politics these days....aaah yes, modern, inclusive politics is just a matter of screching at each other and anything goes.

Quite apart from personal views, this sexual equality thing is an interesting point. Who decides (or indeed do we actually need to) what the 'rules' are? For instance, what's wrong with polygamous marriage, or filial relationships where they aren't forced and all parties agree? Then, similarly who determines the age limits, the commercial possibilities, or indeed the unforced opportunities.

So, how do we move forward? Or is it as its fast becoming today, just what the populist views is at any point in time - changing day by day?

What he stumbled on was being asked whether he thought gay sex was sinful which isn't so much asking for his views as asking him for God's thoughts on the matter, and while Paul may have filled half the New Testament with his prurient judgementalism Farron would have done better to remind the reporter that a person's righteousness is between him and his Creator.

Precisely.

Which he did, on several occasions, still didn't stop them hammering at it though, wouldn't leave it alone.

It would appear, to the uninitiated ,that the problem is the religious doctrine as interpreted than the various sexual lifestyles that contravene .
I appreciate that man needs to believe in some higher deity in order to justify his actions but one would have thought by now the imposition of such teachings on those who do not subscribe is as unacceptable as ridiculing those who do .
Little doubt the LibDems committed hari kiri over the EU farce , as did UKIP , but one would have thought they could have protected their leader a little better knowing that his religious leanings could be his achilles heel .

Never a dull moment .

Yes, there are two issues at play here. Frankly, the first about sexual lifestyles is probably the more important and consequently the more difficult. What is the religion free answer? Perhaps that deserves a separate thread but unless there is an answer, we are stuck with religion of whatever shade being inextricably linked to politics.

Protecting their leader doesn't come naturally to either shade of Conservative, LibDem or Tory. Let's face it, both treat them like animals at a cheap zoo. All the time they are pulling the punters, no issue, pay and rations. If in the view of the zoo keepers they stop, it's bye byes time. Look at past history, Charles Kennedy, Mrs Thatcher and Mrs May is now just a caged lion. Ironic, only Jeremy Corbyn seems to have slipped the lock and avoided the tranquiliser darts. Must mean something, perhaps Labour are starting to get it right.

It's interesting to note that Corbyn is the one who has been on the receiving end of the most vitriol of the various leaders only to find himself as the most likely to be in his given position by the end of the year . May called the election in the belief that she would emulate the last "woman" who occupied No10 and silence those MPs who seemed to think the EU plebiscite was influenced by an over embuliant Borris and a bunch of northern xenophobes . Failure to understand the very people you rely on to achieve your ends must be a worry to everyone .
So in essence we are 2 down and 1 to go . Labour must now actually believe that they are electable and if I was Corbyn pushing for another election PDQ would be my raison d'etre .
Why would it be such as disaster to have a Labour Government anyway ? Yes Blair was a prick as was Brown but I doubt anyone would agree to be completely comfortable in Cameron's presence so , as the good old US of A will discover , if you don't like your leaders vote them out next time round .
The one thing I have learnt is that Politicians love to have their names in lights ,so being hounded out by a disgruntled electorate hurts .

He could have taken some time out by claiming to have diabetes 2. Let the circling media vultures get bored and move on.


He was different in that he was an open and committed Christian, which whether you believe in sky fairies or not makes a change from the faux-pious and pompous political leaders who turn up to Sunday services when the TV crews are around, or put on a facade for other religious events where their attendance is 'part of the job' rather than because they have a strong faith that someone above is watching and checking whether they're lip-synching to the hymns or not....

A bit like today, may visits a disaster scene I private, no camera no media, JC arrived with retinue, full on media scrum, full exposure. "Ooh, a disaster, time to win some political advantage, Diane! Round up the posse!"

I guess May is feeling a bit vulnerable, seeing as it is her party that is starving public services.

Except, by their own admission that borough is rolling in it. Does not compute Will Robinson!

Im surprised she hasn't been accused of arson.😮
Social cleansing... Innit.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/15/grenfell-tow...cident-6711054/

Rolling in it doesn't mean it is spent wisely; however, whether or not it is because of social neglect, the fact remains she will be feeling contrite right now. I see she was too scared to meet residents today.

So it does compute.

Just give everyone a 5 bedroom house, wherever they want ro live. Simples. Surprised JC hasn't promised it... Yet..

Perhaps we could see money spent on things that can protect people from dangerous environments first.

Sadly, as you say, indeed it does compute.

Like wat elf and safety offer up ? Wonder how much tax payers loose change has gone on building regulations ? All very well promising us baskets of goodies in exchange for our patronage, but how about ensuring that the Country is fit to live in . Maybe this will act as a kick in the backside to all of those in power to put aside their political differences to act for the common good .

Would you support the demolition of all these 70s tower blocks?
I agree that they are dangerous eyesores. Where would you put the thousands of people though? They would have to be relocated from places like Kensington and they would resist. Not that I blame them for that. It is home to them. I don't have an answer and I doubt even JC does unlesss he landgrabs from the rich.

Dangerous yes, but eyesore is a trivial concern. It is too early to say, but it looks like people needn't have died for the sake of poor building control and regulations. If the reports are true, it seems fire alarms didn't work and an inferior building material was used; however, we will need to wait for the report.

In a country like this I find it incredible something like this can happen. It's third world stuff.

The issue comes down to competence and good stewardship.

There is probably very little wrong with those tower blocks which were thoroughly structurally checked after the Rowan Point disaster. So we need to await the outcome of the enquiry as to the subsequent failure. High rise got a very bad name because the local government housing maintenance management of the time was appalling. Failing to keep common areas clean and tidy, failing basic common area maintenance such as lighting and lifts, failing to properly manage bad tenants on and on endlessly. Ironically bad practices exacerbated by cuts carried out by Tory controlled councils even back then. High risers in private or better condominium type management are actually much sought after.

I am fearful we are going to find that building control relaxations and standards reductions made in the name of increased efficiency and economy is likely to have caused the problem. An exactly similar situation to the dreadful safety lapses the railways got into after privatisation caused such a muddle.

100+ people by all accounts. Why not be truthful? If people lived there and have not been seen since then they are gone. Landlords should NOT be voting on any laws in parliament to do with building or fire regulations in Parliament. Conflict of interest. Would not be allowed in the Corporate world. Change is needed. But blame of individuals is dangerous. People are looking for individuals to take anger out on. It's the system that is broken. Fix that first and then look to see if any blame should be assigned.

So, A, you 'just know' how she's feeling, and B, she didn't want a media scrum, you know? Show respect? Something the corduroy clown doesn't understand.

It's nothing to do with what she is feeling. If she wants to be a leader, she has to be prepared to do the hard stuff. Swingeing cuts are easy, facing the public isn't. Shes not fit to be prime minister; she's got to go before she can do any more damage.

And the banking system.

Agreed. It is too early to say too much, but a 20 story roman candle in the middle of London in the 21stC is incredible. It just shows how quick we have fallen.

Despite what it might look like, I don't blame Blair, Brown, Cameron/Clegg or May; I blame you and me.


We are seriously turning into a shoite country and Tory vanity is accelerating things.

And Brexit!

And Brexit!

Fark the EU, this happened on their watch too, but I don't see anything getting better while we have a parliament like the one we have at the moment.

How is avoiding the victims showing respect? She's inept. Jeremy Corbyn has never been afraid of people. As time goes on the worse he makes May look.

That's just the point, this conflict of interest is exactly what the corporate world is all about today. Before the Tory 'greed is good' became the mantra we started to live by. Andy Capp is right when he says we are to blame here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40285994

He's nicked my idea...

He'll be afraid of the people soon enough if he gets the top job.

And boy did that blow up in her face -- but she made sure there were plenty of media when she went to the hospital to visit the injured!

She constantly messes up the PR, she and her advisors are hopeless - she spends far too much time avoiding contat with the uncontrolled public, makes it look as if she's scared. Whereas Corbyn is at his best in such an environment.

Said the van driver. 😎

At least the radio works.

🙌

The authrorities need to update the figures. I have seen figures banded about of 350.

They simply don't know yet. It would be almost impossible to guess until a search of the whole place was done. The intense heat meant some bodies would have been incinerated. Equally, given the number of flats, it's going to be hard to account for casual visitors. Frankly, 'the authorities' have more pressing things to do than confirm numbers with pinpoint accuracy - simply expect many more.

They won't be incinerated, probably find d them as lump of carbonised flesh, usually find them in corners, quite often of bedrooms, and under the beds. Usually in the classic 'pugilist' pose. Might be able to find enough DNA if they're lucky.

Also. Supposed to be 2 per flat. Talking about 600 in 120 flats. Most subletted. No criticism of that. But shows massively how much under estimated the UK population is. Unfortunately many many of the dead will be unindentified as they were not here legally.

That's almost bizzare; two per flat; where did that come from? As far as subletting is concerned, to me, its rather like ticket touting, the unacceptable face of capitalisim. Getting a 'return' for doing nothing, absolutley nothing. And people moan about benefit theft!

The 2 per flat was a generalisation so apologies for that. Officially just over 300 people lived in 120 flats. Estimates put it at 6 to 700 though. And if you are illegal you have to live somewhere...Again just relaism. No criticism.

Quite agree.