It seems that Jeremy has been listening to the wise people on this forum and is now advocating the ultimate punishment for terrorists:
No Pudding? – No dinner AT ALL!

And there was me thinking ‘shoot them in the leg and ask them politely not to detonate the explosive vest they are wearing’ 😯

Ha! I wondered just how long it would be before the rabid right wing would make political capital from Paris 13/11, by deliberately misinterpreting the considered comments of a man who thinks before he speaks and refuses to be drawn into manic death and retribution fever. Well done! Stay classy

Careful there V8, you’ll get splinters in your bum sitting on the fence like that.

better than talking out it 😉

Talking out of the fence?

Still, it seems that Jihadi Jez has managed to U turn on his own position again, another victory for plain speaking politics.

One hopes he will one day reach the consistency and clarity of thought you demonstrate

Don’t really do fences. I do call a spade a spade though… Misinterpreting reasonable words about a mass killing that the bodies are still warm from, to score cheap political points is pretty damn scummy. IMHO, of course.

I hope so Junky, if he did then he could write them down on a piece of paper

…to score cheap political points is pretty damn scummy. IMHO, of course.

You only have to look at the likes of who’s doing it.

Jihadi Jez 🙄

Hahaha – ninfan proves Godwin’s Law on the 9th post! Jamba has his work cut out to regain his crown!!

I wondered just how long it would be before the rabid right wing would make political capital from Paris 13/11

Nothing of the sort – Jeremy was talking about what should happen when there is an attack in the UK. Only you are trying to bring Paris into this.

deliberately misinterpreting the considered comments of a man who thinks before he speaks

With considered thinking like he has shown, you can easily see how he managed to achieve the lofty heights of 2 A-Levels at grade E followed by not managing to complete a degree in Trade Union Studies. He certainly isn’t tainted by having done PPE at Oxford.

refuses to be drawn into manic death and retribution fever

Quite, at most anything an ( almost certainly rabidly-right-wing ) police-person will need to do is Shoot To Mildly Disconcert, or if the terrorist is wearing a suicide vest, pull out all of the stops and Shoot To Tickle.

Oh and this has been said of the Rabidly-right-wing Labour* MP Chris Leslie:

“The Prime Minister is right that the police and security services need our full support at this time, but shouldn’t it be immediately to everyone – to everyone – that the police need the full and necessary powers, including the proportionate use of lethal force if need be, to keep our communities safe.”

And the Tory-Beast Labour* MP Emma Reynolds said:

“Does the Prime Minister agree that full responsibility for the attacks in Paris lies solely with the terrorists, and that any attempt by any organisation to somehow blame the west or France’s military intervention in Syria is not only wrong, disgraceful but also should be condemned.”

* Labour as in New Non-Lunatic Labour

I really do despair of, and for humanity. It seems that a massive escalation of the conflict in Syria (where no one even is sure who is killing who, and we sure as hell have no idea how to fix) is the logical and popular response to Paris 13/11. Because indiscrimate bombing of pretty much everyone (and their uncles brothers, mothers, childeren etc) isn’t at all going to unite the disparate factions of all Syrians in a common hatred of the ‘Roman armies’ of the West. It’s not even in line with Christian teaching FFS, not that I count myself as one.

Publicly pointing out the futility and self defeating nature of these actions is tantamount to treason, and will get you roundly mocked in the gutter press, apparently. IT’S WHAT ISIS WANT, FFS!!! Get a grip of yourselves and grow up. This is playground politics being played with high explosives and AK47s.

Bless- Jeremy has changed his mind:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34840708

Maybe he listened to a shadow minister who said:

“I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn’t stand it. He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country”

Hahaha – ninfan proves Godwin’s Law on the 9th post

You could argue that Cranberry had it sewn up in the title… 😯

I just think it’s amusing that someone actually followed Cameron’s memo, not to call them Islamic State, 🙂
Cranberry you are a Tory press office sockpuppet controlled by Grant Shapps/Michael Green and I claim my free universal credit voucher.

Fwiw Corbs was wrong on this one IMHO

Quite, at most anything an ( almost certainly rabidly-right-wing ) police-person will need to do is Shoot To Mildly Disconcert, or if the terrorist is wearing a suicide vest, pull out all of the stops and Shoot To Tickle

Point of fact, there is NO SUCH THING as ‘shoot to kill’ in UK law enforcement, and nor is there ever likely to be. The policy (which there is no tactical reason to change) is ‘shoot to STOP’. The difference may sound like semantics, but it is the difference between self defence (or defence of the public) and murder. Plain and simple.

I wonder if people would mock Chamberlain so much if we’d lost?

Point of fact,

Wow there this is not the STW

Pick a party and defend them for ever whilst condemning the other side

proves Godwin’s Law

Chamberlain wasn’t a nazi, I never mentioned any nazis – therefore I invoke hendersons corollary.

I wonder if people would mock Chamberlain so much if we’d lost?

Well, it was him who declared war on Germany, so probably even more so.

Ya, JC (not Jesus Christ) thinks too much … over anal-ytical.
😆

Publicly pointing out the futility and self defeating nature of these actions is tantamount to treason, and will get you roundly mocked in the gutter press, apparently. IT’S WHAT ISIS WANT, FFS!!!

That doesn’t, of its self, make it the wrong thing to do.

That doesn’t, of its self, make it the wrong thing to do.

If you are referring to ‘what ISIS wants’ than you are strictly correct (although maybe it should give pause for thought?). However, I would respectfully refer you to the rest of the sentence you quoted; ‘futility and self defeating nature of these actions’ would make it the wrong thing to do, IMHO.

“Does the Prime Minister agree that full responsibility for the attacks in Paris lies solely with the terrorists, and that any attempt by any organisation to somehow blame the west or France’s military intervention in Syria is not only wrong, disgraceful but also should be condemned.”

Amazing. 😐

This lot would be really rubbish at RCAs. 😕
We really do seem to be witnessing the radicalisation of our own political system. They are actively refusing to learn from the lessons of history, mere days after Armistic Day. Absolutely shocking behaviour.

from spectator

shadow Europe minister Pat McFadden, attacked STW

We are not neutral

Ah…the attacks in France, what a great opportunity to use them to express disapproval at what some idiot thinks Corbyn may or may not do.

The families of 129 people be damned.

And bombing the crap out of the middle east has really worked out well for us over the past thirty-five years.

I just think it’s amusing that someone actually followed Cameron’s memo, not to call them Islamic State,

The internal communications system can’t be working at the moment, because I didn’t get that memo 😉

Actually, I’d seen the French pointing out that we shouldn’t give a bunch of vicious, pig-ignorant thugs the status of being a state and it chimed with my personal belief that we should be ruthlessly taking the piss out of the people who join facist groups. We really need some one to point and laugh at them the way that Chaplain did in The Great Dictator.

For the record, I am not Grant Schapps, though the one true sign that someone is Grant Schapps is that they sometimes deny being Grant Schapps.

express disapproval at what some idiot thinks Corbyn may or may not do.

TV: “On the wider question of principle, you are putting yourself forward to be prime minister one day. People will want to know, and they are entitled to know, if you, in theory, would ever support military action against islamic extremists?”

JC: “Well, I’m not saying I would or I wouldn’t…”

😆

Will you cut tax credits?
“Yes I mean no..oh **** off”

They all lie

We all lie

Indeed, but somehow Corbyn finds a form of words that makes him look like a ****.

He and Cameron were both asked the same ludicrous “police shoot to kill” question. Cameron gave a professional factual answer referring to the current rules of engagement which nobody could fault. Corbyn managed an answer that seemed to dignify the question and make it sound like he would rather see Policemen killed than criminals.

Both of them have the same view which is the existing rules are correct, and should not be changed, yet Corbyn can’t find an effective way to say it. Other professional politicians can.

True to an extent but this approach means we end up with PR savvy politicians like Blair and cameron and not principled politicians

Applies across the political divide

if we are not careful we will end up with, ever more, US style politics

TBH most if us would agree with this – even if we woudl also agree that the police should shoot terrorists in the UK

“I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can. There are various degrees of doing things as we know … but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that’s got to be the priority.”

He is not actually against it hence the when they can comment it accepts they cannot always do this.

If the electorate wont accept grown up answers we will get soundbite answers that they dont mean and we dont believe. I know which i prefer , again irrespective of party hue.

Firstly Corbyn is not principled in the slightest. He’s not announced any serious policy yet, but we can guess than most of the policies he holds dear will be dropped. (Discussed at length on the Corbyn thread.)

Regarding the case in point it wasn’t a grown up answer, unless by grown up you mean elderly person with Altzheimers. The answer was utterly unclear in spite of the blatent fact we know he won’t be changing the rules when in power because they’re the only sane rules you could have.

We’re used to politicians giving unhelpful and vague answer but usually its to help their cause not to give themselves an electoral kick in the bollocks.

Clearly he is principled hence his stance on nukes and THIS issue – you can remain a blinkered hater ranting about the elderly and Alzheimer’s but in all honestly it makes you look pretty disrespectful and a touch unbalanced

By all means hate him but at least keep it vaguely related to reality as its really not hard to get his meaning*, though you can disagree with his view, even for a tory hater

* I love the way you failed to grasp his meaning but he is the one with “issues”

“The Prime Minister is right that the police and security services need our full support at this time, but shouldn’t it be immediately to everyone – to everyone – that the police need the full and necessary powers, including the proportionate use of lethal force if need be, to keep our communities safe.”

This is an absolutely specious comment. He is calling for the police to have…exactly the same right to use force to protect themselves and others everyone in the country has had for absolutely ****ing ages, and which is not different from what Corbyn said.

I would also say that saying undramatic, complex and unpopular things is the sign of a principled person. He’s been banging away at these unpopular positions for thirty years, which is not the sign of a populist. You could of course say that his principles are awful

loving the push for 13/11,

you really think the population is ready for two prime numbers?

I’m not going to get further lured into a discussion about Corbyn. There’s a whole thread for that.

On the specific issue we’re talking about (what they said, not who they are), Cameron was clear, succinct and said something voters will like.

Corbyn, who must have the same policy on this as Cameron, found a vague of words that don’t represent his policy and will not be popular.

I’m not going to get further lured into a discussion about Corbyn. There’s a whole thread for that. respond to the points that i am biased, my attacks personal and my claims of unprincipled run counter to the facts. However I am going to say I love dave and corbyns a tit

FTFY

If you are not prepared to defend what you say, but then will still repeat it after this [ 🙄 ] then dont join in with internet chat based forums
You were rude and contradictory at least this time you only contradicted yourself.

“Corbyn, who must have the same policy on this as Cameron, found a vague of words that don’t represent his policy and will not be popular.”

Well, okay. It seems like your criticism is one of style, not substance. Fair enough but it’s a bit like holding up score cards after an ice dancing routine. Blair would have got straight 5.0s (even from the tough Bulgarian judges) but I’m not sure I’d want to go back to that…