poontang

I'm not sure why ethnic minorities would be less likely to have photo ID? Photo ID is required in Northern Ireland, and is accepted and used with no real issues. Most people over the age of 18 will have some form of photo ID, whether it be a student card, travel card, driving licence, passport or a myriad of other forms of ID, some may even have a shotgun/firearms licence!! This stems from a report on electoral fraud published in 2014, and photo ID was one of the recommendations. There were other recommendations on proxy voting and party reps handling voters registration and ballots. I would think the Labour party are non too keen on anything that could inhibit some of their core vote from 'playing the system'. Labour... Vote early... Vote often. Arrrgh yes, Peterborough. It's a town on the list of local authority areas identified as at high risk of electoral fraud... bet you can't guess why?

By golly sir, I do believe you've hit the nail on the head.

Good stuff... and on my birthday too About time we had a conservative leader in this country, albeit for just a short visit.

Ooooh, someone's rattled this morning. It's a simple question really. The deep state you claim is behind all the troubles in the world must have people who are in control. An institution on its own can do nothing, but institutions have someone, a person with a name, who is in control of the direction and acts of that institution. You claim these shady institutions are behind all this yet seem unable to name either the institutions or the people in charge of them. It's not about point scoring, simply a request for the information you claim you know, and that forms the basis of your arguments. You constantly berate the msm and claim that anyone following their narrative is somehow being lied to and manipulated, yet you have been drawn in hook, line and sinker by the Russian propaganda machine. Now, I'm sure the western media do, at times, have a bias in reporting yet you only have to look at the front pages of today's newspapers to see they're not all singing from the same hymn sheet. Something I doubt will be noticeable from your sources of information. I think it is you, not me, who is being lied to and played by your choice of media simply because they play to the narrative you want to hear.

The 'deep state' must comprise of people, and those people must have names. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to name them. You were so desperate to spread your disinformation you used the figures obtained from an article in Fortune magazine, which used that figure to guess at the stock rises for the missile manufacturers after the US strikes in Syria last year. C'mon, even I know where you get your information from comrade.

No, really I'm not finding it hard to keep up... but it is becoming near impossible to get a straight answer from you. Now, this 'deep state' which according to you is behind this whole episode consists of who? Individuals and corporations please. You must know who they are as you're accusing them of killing women and children, so I'm sure you'll be happy to name them? The missiles were sent Friday night, and the stock markets don't open again until tomorrow morning, so how could you possibly know that the manufacturers shares have gone up by $5bn? You see, this is the problem with your arguments so far. They're based on what you want to be true rather than any real facts.

Hello Hamster Are we any further forward on the 'outside forces' and the 'truth which is spreading like wildfire'? Are we in 'deep state' territory yet? Just wondered.

I'll look forward to Sergy Lavrov sharing this piece of vital evidence from the Swiss laboratory with the rest of the world. I would assume he would have a copy of the report, after all it wouldn't be much to ask seeing as his country has been accused of poisoning two people on foreign soil. He's had the report in his hands for a couple of days now, so I'm sure he'll have posted this vital and exonerating piece of evidence on t'internet for all to see? I'll go and have a browse, then get back to share the evidence with the PW massive. I'm sure it'll placate all the fifth columnists in our midst.

What 'truth' would that be? Your truth seems to emanate from the Russian propaganda machine, and those of its allies. Hardly a balanced source of information.

I wouldn't underestimate the strength and power of a hungry raptor. I was out photographing hares last year when a male Marsh Harrier attacked a fully grown hare. Whether it would have managed to take off with it I don't know as it was attacked by crows and eventually had to abandon its prey. It did however have it off the ground on a few occasions. A Marsh Harrier weighs about 1lb , a hare around 7lbs. I did manage to grab a quick shot but it was so far off it was of no use so I watched the action unfold through bino's.

This is Simon Franks' speech at last years Labour Party Conference... watch it, but replace the voice of Simon Franks with that of Tony Blair and you'll see exactly where his 'new party' is headed. It's New New Labour. Things can only get better? Things will only get better when the Conservative party actually grow some balls and implement conservative policies.

Well you seem to know the answer... so who is it? Who are these 'outside forces' you talk about?

So who do you see as the wrongdoer this time? The problem with Neil Clark is that everything he says or writes has to be balanced with his views. He is anti the US, anti NATO, anti the UK, anti Israel, indeed anti Western values in general. He backs the likes of Russia, Iran, Palestine and any other person or nation that speaks or acts against the West. He takes the Russian Rouble to spout his nonsense yet lives comfortably in Oxford whilst doing so. He is the archetypal fifth columnist, and like most on the left, more than a little hypocritical.

My faith in our security services is no doubt on a par with your faith in their Russian counterparts? As I have already said, we have a choice on who to believe. I've made mine... and it seems you have too? RT? Neil Clark? Dear Lord

Indeed. We're dealing with espionage/counter espionage, spy's and double agents here. It's James Bond stuff in the real world. No major economy breaks off diplomatic relations or orders expulsions of foreign diplomats without real, hard evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not sure exactly what 'evidence' the general public expect the security services to put out in the news media, but it seems pretty clear that most civilised nations are happy to back the UK on the intelligence they've seen. Is anyone really suggesting MI6 and others should take out a full page ad in The Sun to explain in detail how they've come to the conclusions they have? If it was deemed that the nerve agent had been used by an Iranian, North Korean, Syrian, Palestinian or other pro-Russian state do you not think the UK government would have named them as opposed to Russia? And if, as some seem to suggest, that this is a 'false flag' operation then maybe they can explain exactly what the UK gains by souring relations with Russia? I guess at the end of the day we have to make a decision on who's most likely to be telling the truth, MI6, GCHQ and the Counter Terrorist Command or Putin and his SVR? I'm sure it won't take a full page ad in The Sun for most people to make up their minds.

A white privileged, cisgendered, heterosexual man like yourself will be carted of to the gulags for 're-education' if Agent Cob ever gets a sniff of power.

Worth checking out some of his other stuff. He's a cracking wildlife photographer and does a lot of work with strobes.

It's for real, and a winner of the Natural History Museums wildlife picture of the year award. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit/wpy/gallery/2016/images/special-award-people-s-choice/5140/the-blue-trail.html

Yes, I saw that too. I think old Vince claimed the Brexit vote was 'driven by nostalgia' for a world where 'faces where white'. What the old fool seems to have totally missed is that the vast majority of Europeans have white faces, and Brexit was about leaving a rather nasty and quite sinister political union. There's no fool like an old fool.

I wouldn't hold your breath. The EU are one of the main reasons Putin feels so emboldened at the moment. Notwithstanding the fact that, apart from the UK, no major EU economy pays its fair share towards NATO the Russians are one of, if not the biggest exporter of oil and gas into the EU. Don't expect Merkel to be getting too tough with Putin any day soon.

With that sort of budget you should be able to pick up a pretty good set up. Don't discount buying secondhand, you can get some real bargains. My advice would be to buy from a reputable shop where you should get plenty of advice and usually a limited guarantee too. My two 'go to' outlets are Wex and SRS Microsystems, but there are plenty of others out there. Probably best to steer clear of e-bay unless you really know what you're looking for.

What sort of budget do you have? If you're looking to take wildlife shots eventually you should be looking for something which is preferably weather sealed, has a high burst rate and can handle low ISO settings. There are plenty on the market, but be aware that a decent lens will make more of a difference to your photography than nearly anything else. A crop sensor camera is probably your best bet to start with, but nothing can beat taking your time and getting close to your subject when it comes to wildlife. You're buying into a system when you buy a camera so be sure that whatever system you choose has all the bodies/lenses that you need now and the future. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony and others all do good systems, and will meet any requirements you have. Pick them up and have a play... it's the only way to make a proper, informed decision.

I think people need to understand that the NHS only really covers secondary care services. Primary care, such as GP's, dentists, pharmacists and opticians are nearly all in the private sector, and have been for many years... it's nothing new.

It is just a word, and it's a word with a fairly innocuous history. The interesting thing about “evil” is that it wasn’t so bad when it was young. In fact, the root of “evil,” the Indo-European “upelo,” meant merely “exceeding proper bounds” or “uppity.” Even in Old English, “evil” was used as a fairly bland, general-purpose negative word, encompassing very nasty things or behavior but also applied where today we would probably just use “bad,” “defective” or “unpleasant.” The use of “evil” to mean exclusively “extreme moral depravity or wickedness” only arose in the 19th century. To answer the original question nobody is born evil, in the same way nobody is born good. We are simply born. How we turn out is purely down to the environment we grow up in.