Forum menu
Look at the way EU bureaucratic system is enslaving the future of the Greek children now. They (Greeks) cannot even survive and live in the land of their birth but need to disperse and to beg for jobs all over other EU countries ... sad innit.
Yep.
It's all the evil EU's fault - nothing to with the Greeks own chronic mismanagement of their own country...
[url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasion_and_corruption_in_Greece ]Tax evasion[/url]
I heard that stuttering, stalling interview on radio 4 with Karen Bradley, trying desperately not to admit that, yes, there were far fewer armed officers, and her boss, the one who wants us to vote her in on Thursday was the one who cut them all.
Yep, heard it too. She still managed to get an out of context point in about how Corbyn voted against dodgy terrorist controls being implemented to try and change the focus.
it was strange - i think one of corbyns main appeals is he actually answers the question even if the person wont like the answerSO many politicians just try and evade the simple question [ that we all know the answer to anyway] and it demeans them, us and democracy as they lie/decieve in a shifty and shitty way
You are having a laugh? You did see the debate the other night, didn't you?
SO many politicians just try and evade the simple question [ that we all know the answer to anyway] and it demeans them, us and democracy as they lie/decieve in a shifty and shitty way
Agree, very much a Corbyn strong point is his integrity. He could have simply said "Yes, I will use the nuclear bomb in your made up scenario" but he didn't, he explained why and if people don't like that fine. That sort of lie is hardly going to come back and bite him is it but he still stuck to his principles.
Whereas I am still not sure if I have ever heard May actually answer a question. We just get ridiculous answers that are given until the questioner runs out of time.
What does a Bad deal look like?
May's answer "What we want is a good deal"
So he's not comfortable with world ending destruction. Fine by me. Have we worked out what May stands for yet? Less Police, less funding, more slogans and more chants?
[img] 
[/img]
Badly executed U turns?[img] 
[/img]
Comprehensive failures in the past and moves towards a surveillance state.
To be fair, we are already one of the most surveilled countries on the planet as it is..
Which isn't far enough according to May. Doesn't that make you a bit concerned?
To be fair, we are already one of the most surveilled countries on the planet as it is..
The police complaint after the Westminster attacks was that they were 'drowning in information'. I can't see how collecting more information on everyone improves the situation in any way, shape, or form.
The problem doesn't seem to be the absence of information - the Manchester bomber had been flagged up to police on 5 occasions by his own community - the problem seems to be the manpower available to do anything with that information once they have it.
And as May was the Home Secretary while 20,000 officers were cut, including specialist firearms officers, its no wonder she's trying all manner of deflection techniques to stop people repeatedly pointing this out.
I just hope the Corbyn team hammer this home between now and Thursday. Because the right wing press are already going into full on 'terrorist sympathiser' mode. But that's a side issue. He voted against anti-terrorism legislation because most of it was authoritarian in tone, ill-conceived, badly drafted, rushed-through, and had more to do with curtailing legitimate protest and civil liberties than anything to do with terrorism, and would ultimately be counterproductive
Oh come on, May's failings of the past are all due to what Corbyn might do in the future.
Cut the Zombie Mayggot some slack.
wont be long....
[img] 
[/img]
the Manchester bomber had been flagged up to police on 5 occasions by his own community - the problem seems to be the manpower available to do anything with that information once they have it.
Does it? What practical differences would additional manpower have made in your opinion then?
And as May was the Home Secretary while 20,000 officers were cut, including specialist firearms officers,
It appears there was a police officer on the scene in seconds - and that he heroically tried to take the three of them on on his own, armed just with a baton. So, we had police, in the right place, at the right time, and in a role and job where there is just little or no chance that he would have been armed. If he had been, this attack would have been over in seconds.
anotger attack that would have been ended if all police officers were armed, as in NI
Comical.
The person who was home secretary is now telling us that we've been too soft regards our way of doing things and that she'll be the person to sort it out. She never sorted it as home secretary (which is the perfect position to do it) so why would we believe her now?
May is really quite stupid regards her way of dealing with the public. Another example of poor leadership and of the poor advice around her.
As Binners said.....
What you need is boots on the ground.
Cameras are cheap & give some a warm glow, but they can't kick down doors & interview folks.
Does it? What practical differences would additional manpower have made in your opinion then?
You actually need that explaining?
Ask any grown up. Maybe also ask them not to use any big words
Heard this morning our glorious pm's now been reported to Police for breaching electoral rules over comments made on question time on Friday - accusing Diane Abbott of wanting to erase the records of "criminals and terrorists" from the national DNA database, when she had actually said that innocent people & those who were victims of crime shouldn't have their DNA profiles kept on record...
[url= https://wirralinittogether.blog/2017/06/03/nobody-is-above-the-law-even-the-uk-prime-minister/ ]more here[/url]
ninfan - Member
the Manchester bomber had been flagged up to police on 5 occasions by his own community - the problem seems to be the manpower available to do anything with that information once they have it.Does it? What practical differences would additional manpower have made in your opinion then?
Not my opinion, but according to the former METsenior police bloke interviewed on Sky, we need need the community policing levels (the ones that were cut) to go and investigate as many allegations as possilbe. Given that all the perpetrators of the three recent UK attacks were known to the police but not sufficiently investigated that makes sense to me.
What you need is boots on the ground.
And what would they have done?
You actually need that explaining?
Come on, what do you [b]actually[/b] propose more people could have done?
They knew who he was, they knew his intentions - what they couldn't do was lock him up until he actually did something
Given that all the perpetrators of the three recent UK attacks were known to the police but not sufficiently investigated that makes sense to me.
Not sufficiently investigated? Ok, what could more investigation have done? Short of random searches of his flat for chemicals (which I guarantee would have you lot up in arms about his human rights being breached) they could do nothing, [b]nothing[/b] based only on his suspected intent.
What's it like, being you?
Come on, what do you actually propose more people could have done?
Perhaps the former Met guy knows better than you. Perhaps he doesn't want to share that sort of info too much but knows what he is talking about.
Not my opinion, but according to the former METsenior police bloke interviewed on Sky, we need need the community policing levels
Not my opinion, but according to the former METsenior police bloke interviewed on Sky, we need need the community policing levels (the ones that were cut) to go and investigate as many allegations as possilbe. Given that all the perpetrators of the three recent UK attacks were known to the police but not sufficiently investigated that makes sense to me.
Succinct enough ninfan?
which I guarantee would have you lot up in arms about his human rights being breached)
If there were reasonable grounds what's to be upset about?
Rather strikes me it's you whose thong is getting all twisted..
we need need the community policing levels
To do what? Report them as being radicalised?
Oh, turns out they had been reported, and seemingly this latest one interviewed by police over his extremist views.
So, that worked then.
What more do you [b]actually[/b] suggest the police could have done, short of locking him up based on suspicion?
What more do you actually suggest the police could have done, short of locking him up based on suspicion?
Shoot them, shoot them all, kill em till they are dead twice? That your answer?
Perhaps the police have a plan and have some ideas but didn't have the manpower to keep up with all the other threats they are dealing with. Maybe despite your useless suggestions and pointless trolling you have no practical ideas there. Thanks I'll leave it to the police.
I've no specialisation in law so I can't say, but I can say internment et al does not work.
That's been proven.
What's your suggestion ninfan?
[url= http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/16948424 ]austerity excuse for police cuts for too long[/url]
Maybe despite your useless suggestions and pointless trolling you have no practical ideas there.
Yes I have, I said one above - permit all police officers to carry firearms on and off duty, as in Northern Ireland
20,000 more police officers who can't lock people up based on them not having committed any crime - they might be great for investigating Facebook crime and arresting people for calling a police horse gay, but they can't stop a terrorist attack armed only with an 18" metal stick!
Which Cressida Dick specifically said she didn't want ninfan.
And gave her reasons (R4 this morning if it helps)
There are no easy answers. Even (or especially) with routinely armed officers you'd be waiting for the van to hit people before you could do anything (might make drivers less likely to hit cyclists if the thought they might get shot though).
How about banning cars, vans etc from the centre of towns where there are large crowds? Stop some of these terrorist actions and improve air quality that is actually a far greater threat.
PS you mentioned NI, where the troubles eased when we started talking to terrorists not when we tried draconian measures against them.
Yes I have, I said one above - permit all police officers to carry firearms on and off duty, as in Northern Ireland
and why is that a good idea? Wouldn't have stopped Manchester and not sure what it would have done in London. Got the stats on having more armed police like in France or Germany or the US. Is it actually working anywhere or is it just your gun fetish again?
@ninfan, I'm not involved in policing so have no idea. But as others has said, I hope a senior member of the MET has an inkling of an idea.
If you don't trust the top brass, perhaps the view of an armed police office might sway you? [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/london-terror-attack-bridge-borough-latest-firearms-officer-government-wrong-police-cuts-theresa-may-a7772506.htmlhttp:// ]Independant Article here[/url]
I have no idea how much of this is propaganda / people with an axe to grind, but all you can do is assimilate the information and make a judgement.
In other news, the satisfaction ratings of all parties except the greens are now negative.
permit all police officers to carry firearms on and off duty, as in Northern Ireland
Have you met many police? They'd kill more innocent civilians than the terrorists. More guns is never a good idea!
Yes I have, I said one above - permit all police officers to carry firearms on and off duty, as in Northern Ireland
You are Charlton Heston and I claim my magazine of ammunition for my fully-automatic assault rifle 😆
Come on, what do you actually propose more people could have done?
This.
It's perfectly legal to drive a car. It's perfectly legal to have a knife. It's perfectly legal to have radical islamic views as long as you dont' act on them.
Assuming the "planning" stage is fairly limited and largely verbal the first time these guys step outside the law in a provable way is when they go on the rampage. Locking people up for "seeming like the sort of person who might be a terrorist" is utterly counter-effective.
one of corbyns main appeals is he actually answers the question
He seems no different to any other politician on that score. He has to dodge the tricky questions - that's why they're tricky questions. I see no evidence Corbyn is less evasive than the others and I'd be interested in seeing a count of 'evasive answers' from each of the parties to directly compare.
Also raises the question If the media is pro-May why is she being asking more difficult questions that she has to be evasive over? Surely the candidate the media are biased towards would be asked the *least* tricky questions and be the least evasive?
In Corbyn's case there's 30 years worth of lunacy he has to dodge questions on plus the small matter of how he's going to pay for all the Unicorns he's promised and where the parliamentary time is coming from to do it all. Whenever he's asked about paying for his policies he just mutters "Corporation tax" as though Corporation tax revenue is somehow magically in-elastic.
Did anyone see the comparison of the security legislation Corbyn had voted against (pretty extensive) and the security legislation May had voted against (pretty similar actually)?
So the nazi sympathiser wants the police to have guns... After an innocent bystander was shot. Good work..
Also raises the question If the media is pro-May why is she being asking more difficult questions that she has to be evasive over?
She isn't, she has no answers to the easy and obvious questions. It's almost as if she expects to be asked a difficult question and jumps straight in with the evasion before her brain works out it is actually a simple question (except I don't think she has any answers for any unscripted questions).
Binners - I'm not calling for everyone to be armed, I'm not calling for the right to carry a gun around the streets
I'm calling for the police to be armed, as they already are in part of the UK and pretty much the rest of the world.
Two of the last three attacks have resulted in unarmed police officers, first on the scene, taking on terrorists armed only with a baton. Only for that attack to be subsequently ended by armed police. That's ridiculous given the threat that we, as a society, currently face.
Also raises the question If the media is pro-May why is she being asking more difficult questions that she has to be evasive over?
Easy answer. She isnt being asked "more difficult questions".
She is that incapable she cant even manage to answer what should be straightforward questions.
Hence the change in the press coverage over the course of the campaign as the media have got a tad irritated with her.
I'm calling for the police to be armed, as they already are in part of the UK and pretty much the rest of the world.
In contrast to the what the UK police want.
That's ridiculous given the threat that we, as a society, currently face.
How are you going to pay for all the extra cops required to cover the training time for training all cops to be even basically competent with a firearm?
What about those cops who cant shoot straight and hence would be a liability?
I'm calling for the police to be armed
Yeah, cos more guns has always worked.,,.
What happens when one side gets a new bigger, deadlier toy than the other side?
Hmm?
The other side goes & gets a toy that matches or is bigger....
Just what we need: an arms race on our streets..
You haven't thought this through have you..
She isnt being asked "more difficult questions".
She isn't, she has no answers to the easy and obvious questions.
It seems impossible to me that the candidate getting the hardest questions is being least evasive, while the candidate who is getting the questions that require no evasion is being most evasive, but let's assume that's true...
How do you know this? That's right. From the media.
So the media which is biased against Corbyn is informing you (in your view correctly) that Corbyn is far better than May.
In contrast to the what the UK police want.
Pfft! What do they know? We've a bona fide expert giving them the answers here
Heres Amber Rudd not wanting to upset the arms revenue money stream and make sure no one talks about our allies funding extremist dogma
Also raises the question If the media is pro-May why is she being asking more difficult questions that she has to be evasive over?
She isn't being asked more difficult questions. She just can't answer them because her and her parties previous actions don't back up any answer she can give. And the media that is pro-May is media such as Daily Mail which don't ask May any questions. They just slur Corbyn at eery opportunity
In Corbyn's case there's 30 years worth of lunacy he has to dodge questions on plus the small matter of how he's going to pay for all the Unicorns
Only lunacy if you believe the biased media (which you clearly do) with things taken out of context, don't include the explanations given etc,.
He has clearly laid out how he is going to pay for it, not sure why people don't get this. You can disagree with it and use your economics experience to find potential holes but the key thing is if you agree in the direction and intent.
Do you want improved public services and do you want to tax rich people and corporations to pay for the improvements. If you don't then fine, move on.