Forum menu
Theresa May seems to be trying to argue that creating vast ungovernable spaces has *not* caused a problem.
I don't see how she can fix this until she realizes where the causes lie.
EDIT: and thinking about it, I wonder what else she's confused about.
intervening in the Middle East MIGHT have been a good idea if there had been a plan for the peace. Quite clearly there never was hence why we are here now. I still here no plans for how to clear up the mess, if it is actually possible now!
I would suggest that once ISIS is defeated another group will appear and repeat what we are seeing now.
I must admit I'm warming to him. Shame he's left it so long to start being the opposition.
It's worse than that though, isn't it? There were plenty of people, far better informed than our warmongering politicians, who were predicting, and warning, exactly what would happen if we went ahead. But even they underestimated the bloody chaos we're in now.
But they were shouted down, demonised, and branded cowards and traitors! It now seems Brexit wasn't the first time our glorious leaders 'did a Gove' ... we've had enough of 'experts'
I hope May keeps banging on about this issue, because she's been on the wrong side of this argument from the off. All she's doing now is reminding everyone of that fact
Strong and stable Binbins strong and stable
I would suggest that once ISIS is defeated
That's the whole nub of the matter - you can't kill an [i]idea[/i] by bombing it.
I must admit I'm warming to him. Shame he's left it so long to start being the opposition.
He's been being the opposition for the past two years, only most people chose not to listen, quite a few of the present company included.
I think the perception in some quarters is that he hasn't been an [i]effective[/i] opposition.
I don't agree.
He's actually had two battles to fight (within Parliament and against the Right-wing press) but he's just kept at it, and the scales are finally falling from the electorate's eyes.
Well, I hope they're enjoying the benefits of hindsight. Thanks to their collective miopia we're about to sleepwalk into the most inept and undeserving government in my lifetime. If Corbyn had been given a fair crack of the whip by his own side, May would have been toast long ago.
If I was Corbyns team I'd be saying '20,000 less police officers' every time the Maybot says 'strong and stable'
If Corbyn had been given a fair crack of the whip by his own side
Good point, and my mistake - he's been fighting [i]three[/i] battles.
Jeez, he's as heroic as [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime#Animated_character_biography ]Optimus Prime[/url]!
😉
If I was Corbyns team I'd be saying '20,000 less police officers' every time the Maybot says 'strong and stable'
Wouldn't you be saying "20,000 [b]fewer[/b] police officers" ?
If I was Corbyns team I'd be saying '20,000 less police officers' every time the Maybot says 'strong and stable'
Well, I'd hope he'd be saying 20,000 fewer police officers 😉
But, that's probably the most positive I've ever seen you be about the man binners, so I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies...
Oh look, Binners has come a full 360, the wind must have changed...
As for rules of engagement, I'll ask. They're currently supplementing CNC whilst officers are deployed elsewhere so shouldn't be hard to find one.
He's labour. We don't have cars, and we don't speak proper, like 😉
And yes... it does look like I'm back where I started. I think an awful lot has has changed in the last week. The view from Manchester most certainly has!
He's labour. We don't have cars, and we don't speak proper, like
This is what we've been trying to tell you for the past couple of years
You don't think that what she has said in the past might be revealing of what they really think, and would do if they were put in a position of power?
No because all politicians are guilty of saying daft/incorrect/inappropriate things, just the left get echoed in the media way more (re Theresa May on tourism / terrorism slip up hardly being reported). And secondly people are what they do not what they say.
Well this is a pretty damning indictment of both Theresa May as Home Secretary, and a certainDr Liam Fox when he was defence secretary
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/27/libya-fallout-theresa-may-failed-terror ]The Libya fallout shows how May has failed on terror[/url]
The idea that a government led by these clowns would lead to us all being safer is as laughable as it is insulting!
It seems pages ago that I mentioned that Corbyn could win. What's that line from whoever "events dear boy, events". It seems to me that Labour are pretty close now to a fantastic win or May being down to even less of a majority than she gave up.
It seems pages ago that I mentioned that Corbyn could win. What's that line from whoever "events dear boy, events". It seems to me that Labour are pretty close now to a fantastic win or May being down to even less of a majority than she gave up.
I heard much the same in 1992
And 2015
I heard much the same in 1992And 2015
Naah, you didn't.
So ninfan still can't explain why a fully armed police can't stop a bomber what a surprise. I thought had solutions there... So. Sad. #disappointment
She accused the Police Federation of scaremongering and repeatedly “crying wolf” over the impact of the previous round of cuts in police funding as part of the government’s austerity programme – and rejected their claims that further cuts would force them to adopt “paramilitary styles of policing” in Britain.
[s]Strong and stable[/s]Complacent and not up to the job.
It's a two year old article, but it seems extremely prescient.
fully armed police can't stop a bomber
Way to go, you just shot your own argument on police cuts in the foot, didn't you, If even a fully armed police can't stop them, let's get rid of them.
Like McDonnell wanted
ninfan - memberWay to go, you just shot your own argument on police cuts in the foot, didn't you, If even a fully armed police can't stop them, let's get rid of them.
Same conference from 2 years ago when TM was home sec, she was warned that her destruction of community policing would lead to intelligence collection drying up. Which seems to be what's happened here.
against the Right-wing press
If people bought left wing newspapers the press would be left wing and the right wing press would go to the wall. Wonder why it doesn't happen......
Way to go, you just shot your own argument on police cuts in the foot, didn't you, If even a fully armed police can't stop them, let's get rid of them.
No, but if you had 20000 more police investigating leads from the community telling them that a man was a threat would that man have been in the position to be a suicide bomber?
75-100 seat majority is my call.
The Diane has been doing her bit, she seems to think that being on the same panel/speaking event doesn't count as meeting an IRA terrorist
The shadow Home Secretary was also asked about her own comments in a 1988 interview in an Irish Republican journal, in which she reportedly said: [b]“Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.[/b]”
I see Diane has been out to reinforce Corbyns "I didn't meet the IRA message"
https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/iain-dale-reads-guidos-corbyn-ira-list-diane-abbott/
And as for honouring all the dead of the troubles
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/night-jeremy-corbyn-stood-in-honour-of-dead-ira-terrorists-1-7008757
Corbyn is effective at deflecting direct criticism of his personal politics by careful selection of what he says and the platitudes he uses. What he says isn't the issue it's what he doesn't, that's why the failures to answer direct questions are so important and telling. It allows him to operate two narratives simultaneously, one for the fellow travellers and one for the public. Whilst all the time trolling his opponents with what he does
Corbyns line of "I didn't meet the IRA" is different to " I didn't meet members of the IRA" which he didn't say
" I worked for peace in NI" is different to " I worked for a united Ireland and removal of all British presence" which he campaigned for continuously
fully armed police can't stop a bomber
French have had 5,000 soldiers on the streets since Charlie Ebdo/Hyper Kacher and the French police are armed but they have still had Bataclan and Nice attacks
rench have had 5,000 soldiers on the streets since Charlie Ebdo/Hyper Kacher and the French police are armed but they have still had Bataclan and Nice attacks
Which coms back to more police following up leads, Police that May made redundant, the same May who is cosying up to Saudi Arabia, who just happen to bank role the Wahhabi school of Islamic thought, that just happens to underlie much of the current issues.
big_n_daft - Member
against the Right-wing pressIf people bought left wing newspapers the press would be left wing and the right wing press would go to the wall. Wonder why it doesn't happen......
Well that's a suitably daft question from big n daft.
Owning a national newspaper requires having vast amounts at your disposal. Rupert Murdoch, for example, is a multi-billionaire who can easily cope with the fact that last year his British newspaper operation experienced several £millions in loses.
People with vast amounts of money at their disposal tend to be staunchly right-wing. This is especially true of newspaper barons who are often motivated by the irresistible prospect of manipulating public opinion. In fact manipulating public opinion often comes before making a profit.
I hope that helps or do you need further help with explaining why people with vast amounts of money at their disposal tend to be right-wing?
Yay! Ernie's back! I've joined Momentum comrade 😀
Not really. I just *ing hate the Tory's! And in particular the hoof****ing thunder* who is presently my elected representative
Does your Socialist Worker come with a free tin foil hat?
If there was a market for it then even the Socialist Worker could be main stream media, if people bought it they would print more and so on. Or would they restrict the print run to keep pure?
No, but if you had 20000 more police investigating leads from the community telling them that a man was a threat would that man have been in the position to be a suicide bomber?
Well, since in this case they already had the leads, as with other attacks they already knew him, he had been repeatedly flagged as an extremist,
What they couldn't do was lock him up based just on being a threat
And if they [b]had[/b] locked him up, or even been monitoring him, regularly searching his house et. Then you would have been one of the first hopping up and down calling the police racist for doing so.
Yeah good point big n daft, owning a national newspaper doesn't require having vast amounts of money at your disposal - it's just a coincidence that Rupert Murdoch owns over 150 newspapers and also happens to be a multi-billionaire.
I must have been talking bollocks.
Does Socialist Worker own a broadcasting and film making concern?
Does Socialist worker sponsor major sporting events?
The reach of the billionaire press barons is insidious, all enveloping.
If SW had that kind of reach, i'm sure their publication figures would also be significant
.
You mean like the 900 million pound Scott Trust limited? (Guardian and observer)
ulysse - Member
I'd imagine lethal force from the Army is a given..
Absolutely, we're all mindless trigger-happy nutters 🙄
To answer zokes' question on the legality of soldiers shooting somebody, peacetime rules of engagement only give service personnel the same inherent legal right of self defence as any member of the public, i.e. You may use lethal force if you reasonably believe that your life (or somebody else's) is in danger and there is no other way to prevent the danger. There are also rules about issuance of warnings. The difference is that we're allowed to carry firearms on duty, so the lethal force is considerably more so. The entitlement to use it is exactly the same as a member of the public. Regarding the "shoot to kill" element, this gets misunderstood. AIUI armed police are taught how to shoot to incapacitate if appropriate, this is quite a subtle and complex thing. Servicemen are, in general, just taught to aim for the middle! "Shoot to kill" becomes confused with extra-judicial killing; it isn't.
Making the judgement in the case of a suspected suicide bomber is difficult; there are signs and there is training, but there's a big potential for a mistake as with Menezes. If a squaddie were to shoot somebody and they turned out to be innocent, if it was found to be a reasonable and honest belief, the law protects them, as it should.
Ouch:
And yet ninfan, May is managing to lose ground to him...
I wouldn't trust you with a weapon, airtragic, but dont take that personally, I wouldn't trust anyone, full stop, farmers for dispatching distressed animals included.
They're designed with one purpose, why would anybody choose to own or work with one.
Would you trust your sweet innocent "unarmed" drug dealing mate with one?