You know what, since I met him that's exactly what I've tried to do. I've read up a bit on Yemeni modern history and it is plagued by war and atrocities from almost everyone who has attempted to change politics, be they Yemeni, Saudi, British, Egyptian or the other gulf states. From what I can see, the war in which British servicemen were killed was a conflict between two sides with very little moral credibility. The Royalists who us and the Saudis joined forces with were headed by a King who regularly murdered his own people, with our intervention being principally to preserve oil interests in the area. On the other side, Egypt's support of the Republic killed thousands of people, using chemical weapons in the process. Undoubtedly horrible, but as I said previously this is just one of many examples of the horrors of war, and to tar all Yemeni people today as deserving to die, especially given many tribespeople and royalists supported the British, is ludicrous.

But I maintain that this is beside the point. You are using your personal experience of war in Yemen to justify what the Saudis are currently doing, which, I repeat, is committing war crimes in major cities where the average age is FIFTEEN, in order to protect a former president whose popularity was so low he had to flee, and they are being supported by the British government. Tell me, does a 12 year old child blown up by a air-range missile 'deserve all they get' because of what some of their ancestors did?

And as an aside, you seem to forget that the Saudis, our allies, are the most culpable of beheading, stoning and delimbing!

Edited by serial thriller (14 Sep 2015 5.11pm)

One of the ingenuous comments from "two legs bad, 4 legs good" is that people should be able to opt out of the part of Income Tax that funds the MOD.

Does that mean I don't have to protect them anymore then.

I'm not a fan of DC, but he must be pissing his sides at the minute, I think I shall be glued to Prime Ministers question time, should be a hoot.

Edited by dannyh (15 Sep 2015 8.40am)

Sounds like Corbyn could actually try and make it a worthwhile question and answer session rather than a pointless playground comparison of who has the biggest boll*cks.

A big part of the reason of Corbyn's success is people being turned off by the status quo of modern politics. Even if you don't agree with a word he says you must admit it's about time we had something different in parliament?

Edited by DanH (15 Sep 2015 9.04am)

This is an observation: Corbyn doesn't appear to want to speak at all in public. He appears to be taking a strategy of speaking at rally's and protests. I am all for PMQ to be reformed as it is a bit silly (albeit entertaining) but a refusal to participate in it, which is what he is hinting at, will cause problems for him. He simply does need to speak in Parliament as this is the primary visual representation of government for much of the electorate.

This is an observation: Corbyn doesn't appear to want to speak at all in public. He appears to be taking a strategy of speaking at rally's and protests. I am all for PMQ to be reformed as it is a bit silly (albeit entertaining) but a refusal to participate in it, which is what he is hinting at, will cause problems for him. He simply does need to speak in Parliament as this is the primary visual representation of government for much of the electorate.

Maybe it is the childish nit-picking, the blame culture and the nauseating spin which comes with PMQ - as well as the important stuff - that he has aversion to. But don't we all?

He needs to get his head around it, involve himself, I agree. He doesn't have play 'the game' but he will need a will of steel and thick rhino skin not to take the bait that will be generously offered, and often, from the government benches.

Interesting times in Westminster at last.