Van hits pedestrians on London Bridge

[CWARD]

41 minutes ago, Lee01 said:

Just because he wouldn't nuke people first thus killing millions of people in a no-win situation doesn't necessarily mean he would prevent a cop from shooting a terrorist dead in his tracks.

 

Err...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11999218/Jeremy-Corbyn-Im-not-happy-with-shoot-to-kill-policy-if-terrorists-are-attacking-Britain.html

[@Lee]

1 minute ago, CWARD said:

 

Err...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11999218/Jeremy-Corbyn-Im-not-happy-with-shoot-to-kill-policy-if-terrorists-are-attacking-Britain.html

That's over two years old and from before the recent spate of attacks. He also said he was not 'happy' with the idea but in that article he also cannot be found to say he would rule it out.

He also said “Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening? That’s got to be the priority.”

Intelligence from a properly funded police force that's not cut to the bone is one way of preventing terrorism.

[CWARD]

Is he changing his mind again. He does seem to sway whichever the wind blows. 

We better stockpile the body bags whilst he gets talking. Maybe he'll invite convicted ISIS members to the Houses of Parliament for tea and biscuits too in the next couple of weeks to rub salt in the wounds of those that have lost family and friends like he did after the Brighton bomb. 

 

You may want to look up the PREVENT strategy and Nazir Afzal's brave comments. 

Edited 4 June, 2017 by CWARD

[Ootohere]

Terrorism is in the UK to stay as there is a generation prepared to commit terrorism and another younger generation that will continue it.

No special weapons needed from homegrown ones, vehicles and knives and not even any special communications when your cell is just your best buddies and future partners in a suicide mission,

and just think what the highly trained fighters can do when they are back in the UK.

 

Subways, Trains, Ships, Planes, Gas & Electricity terminals. Water Works, computer systems for utilities, pipelines etc etc.

 

Time that the UK starts really sorting out Homeland security pre Brexit and get some agreements going with France, Holland etc for after BREXIT.

 

We are not all doomed, but the UK is not going to be the same anymore.

Not like the war with the IRA, PIRA, UVF, UDA etc, you are not going to have these terrorists becoming Members of the UK's Parliament.

[Dr Zoidberg]

2 hours ago, gadgetman said:

I paraphrase a bit, but he's a pacifist through and through. 

 

If a decision had to be taken such as a shoot to kill order should a situation warrant it, I'm not confident he would make that call. Even if it was to halt a Mumbai style attack. 

 

Plenty of people base that opinion on an interview with Laura Kuenssberg which the BBC trust didn't approve of.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-trust-rules-laura-kuenssberg-misrepresented-jeremy-corbyn-a7533096.html

 

 

[Dr Zoidberg]

1 hour ago, CWARD said:

 

Err...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11999218/Jeremy-Corbyn-Im-not-happy-with-shoot-to-kill-policy-if-terrorists-are-attacking-Britain.html

 

We don't have a shoot to kill policy under a conservative government. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34843529/heres-what-shoot-to-kill-actually-means

[Ootohere]

Call it what you want but the UK trained in firearms Police & Army can shoot with the result being a dead person.

That is shoot to kill if you need to. 

So that is a good thing.    But it is not going to stop terrorists being able to kill and maim first. 

[gadgetman]

10 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

 

We don't have a shoot to kill policy under a conservative government. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34843529/heres-what-shoot-to-kill-actually-means

But that is exactly what happened last night, so clearly there is now such a policy since that article you linked to was published

[CWARD]

21 minutes ago, Dr Zoidberg said:

 

We don't have a shoot to kill policy under a conservative government. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/34843529/heres-what-shoot-to-kill-actually-means

 

Hs comments were in response to more heavily armed police on the streets of France. JC didn't want the same on our streets. If he'd had his way then London Bridge would have a lot worse. 

Personally I wish they'd captured more alive for any information they may gleaned from them. After a successful prosecution I would have no problem with a death penalty. The same applies for Pavlo Lapshyn too. 

[Dr Zoidberg]

22 minutes ago, gadgetman said:

But that is exactly what happened last night, so clearly there is now such a policy since that article you linked to was published

 

We have a shoot to stop policy where the police are supposed to only fire at an immediate threat and the aim is to remove the danger, and the same rules apply whether it's a terrorist attack or any other potentially dangerous situation they might deal with. 

 

They are trained very well and get it right far more often than most other nations, but the difference between this and shoot to kill in practice is minimal. If they are presented with an armed knifeman like this, they would aim for centre mass as the fastest way to stop them which is very likely to kill. If there's a potential bomb then a headshot is the most effective way to stop them being able to detonate and that really will have a fatal effect. 

 

The police have said that the normal investigation following any police shooting will follow to ensure that it was justified. Very obviously that's not going to be a difficult decision for the IPCC but it will happen. *That's* where the difference in policy is. 

 

[Dr Zoidberg]

11 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

Hs comments were in response to more heavily armed police on the streets of France. JC didn't want the same on our streets. If he'd had his way then London Bridge would have a lot worse. 

Personally I wish they'd captured more alive for any information they may gleaned from them. After a successful prosecution I would have no problem with a death penalty. The same applies for Pavlo Lapshyn too. 

 

I don't want to see heavily armed police either, though they are now needed. I think it says a lot of good about the UK that the vast majority of police didn't need to be routinely armed, though I suspect those days are numbered.

 

I know I wouldn't have joined the police if I'd had to carry a gun and plenty of others felt the same. What I did want to know was that if I needed armed officers they would be there quickly and outside of central London the fact is that they wouldn't be. Had this happened in any number of towns across the country then they wouldn't have been stopped in 8 minutes. 

[CWARD]

Completely agree with your comments but JC is the wrong person to stand up to such a threat. In your job I certainly wouldn't want anyone as incompetent as Diane Abbott making any kind of decision for the police. You may notice she has been strangely quite as shadow Home Secretary.  

[Dr Zoidberg]

It's not my job any more. I left a long while back. 

I definitely wouldn't want Diane Abbott in charge of anything though, let alone something important like the home office. 

 

[KenONeill]

@CWARD You think that the Mayfly and Amber Rudd are competent!!!? It was Nicola Sturgeon who, with 10 minutes to make the decision, called for an end to campaigning following the Manchester bombing instead of launching the SNP manifesto. Now that is a states(wo)manlike decision.

[CWARD]

With the best of a bad bunch I would rather have May and Rudd as opposed to Corbyn and Abbott.

Given what other alternatives I have to vote for what would you recommend!!!?

 

[KenONeill]

Your own party!

[trundlenut]

10 minutes ago, CWARD said:

With the best of a bad bunch I would rather have May and Rudd as opposed to Corbyn and Abbott.

Given what other alternatives I have to vote for what would you recommend!!!?

 

You mean just May, no one else is allowed to make decisions. 

[CWARD]

I don't have a party, I'm your typical swing voter more centre right of politics. As before then best of a bad bunch. 

[CWARD]

2 minutes ago, trundlenut said:

You mean just May, no one else is allowed to make decisions. 

 

?

[trundlenut]

3 minutes ago, CWARD said:

 

?

Micro managing, everything goes past the boss, the children can't act independently. 

[CWARD]

Obviously your view. 

[trundlenut]

3 minutes ago, CWARD said:

Obviously your view. 

My opinion,  formed from a variety of sources including the more right wing publications and what has been said by cabinet ministers on TV. 

[CWARD]

If you say so 

[trundlenut]

4 minutes ago, CWARD said:

If you say so 

Glad I could amuse you, I didn't think I could do anything more, just as valid as your opinion though. 

[CWARD]

Very true, you do amuse me. 

Edited 4 June, 2017 by CWARD