A final solution to the Daesh problem – no pudding

😆

I think Konabunny has nailed it.

Besides, I’d take a principled socialist who hasn’t abused his expenses privileges and who questions the sanity in sinking £160bn into nuclear weapons we’d be insane to use over that of a pig-molester anytime, especially when the porcine-prodder in question is letting big business get away with billions in unpaid taxes whilst blaming the state of the nation’s finances on the poor and the sick.

Jean Charles de Menezes’s opinion would be ?

Jean Charles de Menezes’ death was tragic, and a complete failure of operational inteligence, communication and command in the heat of the moment, but it was legal by the rules of engagement that our armed police adhere to. At the inquest it was found that the police officers in question had an honestly held belief that a bomb detonation was imminent and that they employed the minimum force required to neutralise that threat and protect the lives of themselves and the public.

I’d take a principled socialist who hasn’t abused his expenses privileges and who questions the sanity in sinking £160bn into nuclear weapons we’d be insane to use over that of a pig-molester anytime, especially when the porcine-prodder in question is letting big business get away with billions in unpaid taxes whilst blaming the state of the nation’s finances on the poor and the sick.

What he/she says +1

At the inquest it was found that the police officers in question had an honestly held belief that a bomb detonation was imminent and that they employed the minimum force required to neutralise that threat and protect the lives of themselves and the public.

they gave an open verdict and not a lawful killing so you are being somewhat disingenuous in your description of what the inquest found

@ V8

So we already have proportionate shoot to kill policy, its just it’s application can be a bit “random” mmmmm…….ok

Stephen Waldorf, Harry Stanley and James Ashley etc etc.

or is Cameroon wanting to get a bit carried away 007stylie

I thought Corbyn was referring to the Northern Ireland sort of “shoot to kill” policy.

not a lawful killing

agreed; because of

a complete failure of operational intelligence, communication and command

Not intending to come across as disingenuous. Just pointing out that the very real failings were not the fault of bad rules of engagement, per se.

well the jury rejected the lawful killing option so whatever we want to say claiming its lawful is not a reasonable position to claim as the only jury to pass a judgment rejected this option

They gave no reason for the judgement as juries dont get asked

The reason you raise was not one of the questions asked either so ai m not sure what evidence you are using to reach that conclusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Inquest

So we already have proportionate shoot to kill policy, its just it’s application can be a bit “random” mmmmm…….ok

No. We have a LAW which says that proportionate force may be employed in the defence of life. This is the same law that governs you and I, it’s just that we are not allowed to patrol the streets with lethal weaponry. (This isn’t some backward feudal state like the US 😉 )

A ‘shoot to kill policy’ is a very different beast, and could basically legitimise the summary execution of citizens in the streets; I truly hope that it could never happen here.

So its still a “leap of faith” to assume, that arming our police and sending them out with a “shoot to kill” mandate, is going to make the citizens of this country any safer. Innit ?

But I wouldn’t have shown the restraint, that the armed officers showed, in arresting Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale

@junkyard, I apologise. My use of the word ‘legal’ in my original post was incorrect; more properly I should have said ‘correct’ within the framework of information that the officers had available to make their decision. The failing is that they were clearly supplied with very poor information, hence my assertions re. Command, Intel and comms.

A remarkably civil discussion of facts …how very un STW 😉

I dont disagree with your later/other post FWIW and it was a dogs dinner of an operation but it seems unlikely they did a shoot to kill and did do a shoot to stop a terrorist – the reality for the victim and his family is this distinction is irrelevant

So its still a “leap of faith” to assume, that arming our police and sending them out with a “shoot to kill” mandate, is going to make the citizens of this country any safer. Innit ?

Sorry, not quite sure what point you are making. The current ROE are perfectly suitable. Armed police have been considerable upskilled and now have considerably more ‘tools’ at there disposal since Mumbai, but the legal framework remains the same. A completely different tactical approach has been extensively trained for and would need authorisation to employ should a similar event unfold on British streets. Suffice it to say it is considerably more, err, direct than normal day to day armed police work. 😯

But I wouldn’t have shown the restraint, that the armed officers showed, in arresting Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale

Then I’m very glad you are not an armed officer then. Their ‘restraint’ was to their great credit, IMHO.

@junkyard, agreed, the same tragic outcome for Menezes and his family.

It is important to recognise that whilst ‘shoot to stop’ may well (and often does) result in death, it is still not ‘shoot to kill’.

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

If we’d have lost I think we’d all be praising Chamberlain as that’s what our history books written by the Nazis would have told us to do.

@v8 Jez was overwhelmed by a torrent of critism from the Labour Party. Sadly sooner or later the broader membership will understand he’s a liability to the cause.

Met are recruiting additional 700+ armed officers. Still woefully inadequate and as the Surrey Police commissioner says our police need proper automatic weapons and single shot rifles and handguns aren’t going to get the job done.

@v8 if yiu shoot to stop a terrorist with a suicide belt, what happens next ? How about sending in Jez to carry out first aid / the arrest / discuss the issue with his new “friend” ?

@v8 if yiu shoot to stop a terrorist with a suicide belt, what happens next ? How about sending in Jez to carry out first aid / the arrest / discuss the issue with his new “friend” ?

What is a (the only) reasonable and proportionate action to stop a terrorist with a suicide belt (or even one you honestly suspect has one)? I can assure you first aid would be futile.

our police need proper automatic weapons and single shot rifles and handguns aren’t going to get the job done.

I’ve seen first hand a force demonstration of the weaponry our police have in their arsenal to counter the terrorist threat. Have you? I’ll just say that the considerably larger cars that they tool around in these days isn’t just a coincidence.

Nope

Why is it we “can’t let ISIS win” by fearing terrorists but we can let ISIS win by turning ourselves into a police state.

P.S. Armed police rarely ever arrive in time to prevent these acts.

P.S. Armed police rarely ever arrive in time to prevent these acts.

Err, obviously. But rapid and forceful deployment can mitigate and minimise casualties. No one is trying to suggest that armed police can prevent the incident in the first place, that is not their role. Prevention falls to a different agency altogether.

You write that as if Cameron is the only world leader calling them Daesh – what exactly is the objection people have to using that name?

Just found this, it explains exactly why the term Daesh should be used by everyone, especially the media:
https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/

“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.”

That reads to me like confusion between armed police/military RoE and extra-judicial killing, like the SAS (allegedly) in Gibraltar back in the 80s, if not in JC’s mind then in the press. There’s no such thing as a shoot to NOT kill policy, except for some marksmen under certain circumstances that I can’t imagine applying to an armed attack/suicide bomber. If you’re legally opening fire in the defence of your life or others, the object is to kill the other party. Clearly it would be better if things didn’t get to that stage as JC says, but the police have to be empowered if they do, as he also says.

If you are not prepared to defend what you say

I am delighted to defend what I say and fully accept the obligation to do so. The case has been fully made and discussed in the Corbyn thread so you can read it there. If you feel there was something missing from that I’m happy to address it, but I’m not going to cut and paste it into this thread when you can read it there.

Well, okay. It seems like your criticism is one of style, not substance.

On this issue, yep, purely style.

However I am going to say I love dave and corbyns a tit

I haven’t encountered a hysterical emotional outburst as good as that since my sister hit puberty, well done!

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…

Yep, Blair would have got straight 5s. Best political communicator in living memory AFAIC by quite a margin. An election winning machine. Whether we want to go back to that depends on what you mean by “that”. If you mean destabilizing the middle east and killing millions, most people would agree, if you mean we don’t want to go back to Labour Governments perhaps less people would agree.

Just found this, it explains exactly why the term Daesh should be used by everyone, especially the media:
https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/

Good find, every day’s a school day. If there’s a way of referring to Daesh that pisses them off, I’m all in favour of using it!

“Meanwhile a Shadow minister has told the BBC: 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”.

Fair point, but he should have resigned before making it.

I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons, where they can…and so on

I don’t think Corbyn is talking just about the security forces here. I think his general point is that is better to use intelligence and our police forces to as much as we can to make sure it doesn’t get to the point of shooting on street,by anyone, terrorists and police alike. Which seems reasonable

There’s nothing even vaguely controversial about what he said. It’s yet another smear concocted by the establishment (including his own MPs). Sad.

I think his general point is that is better to use intelligence and our police forces to as much as we can to make sure it doesn’t get to the point of shooting on street,by anyone, terrorists and police alike. Which seems reasonable

That can’t be right – we need to bomb someone!! Anyone!!! (In extremis we can bomb EVERYONE with Trident – that will sort it).

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b6c_1447660445

There’s nothing even vaguely controversial about what he said. It’s yet another smear concocted by the establishment (including his own MPs). Sad.

Cameron, answered the same question by simply stating the current rules are ok. Corbyn could easily have said that.

Instead a couple of days after a terrorist atrocity someone asks him about what is current police policy and has been for years and he offers the soundbite: “not happy”.

Yes, anyone who researches all his words will see what he meant but how many of his target voters who are so disinterested they don’t vote are going to research the full text of his words? Not many.

What you’re saying is that he needs to pander to the infantile, cretinous standards of ‘debate’ that go on in our national press, because people like you are going to make an issue out of what he says even where there isn’t one. Marvellous.

My conclusion was that when Kuenssberg used the phrase “shoot to kill” she set off a pavlovian reaction in Corbyn’s mind. For him the phrase meant the alleged concept of police and military lethal ambush or even summary execution which led to events like Loughgall, Gibraltar and the cases examined by Stalker in the 80s. The phrase was used again post Stockwell, albeit in a slightly different, tactical context. As such, whether Kuenssberg meant to or not, she triggered an awful realisation in his mind that he may, one day, be asked to sanction the use of preemptive lethal force based on intelligence and identification of suspects. Whatever your views of him, he bolloxed the answer, and on a day when politicians were falling over themselves to offer determined and resolute soundbites to a public hellbent on hearing promises of bloody revenge, he decided to give a considered, albeit somewhat fluffed response. Another nail in his coffin, hammered home the next day by his own party. How this will affect his ability to whip the party on the forthcoming vote remains to be seen.

I think his general point is

If you’re left trying to figure out what someone’s general point is, then they are a poor communicator, and you have to question their ability as a politician, let alone as a potential prime minister.

Like it or not, as PM you are going to have to make some tough decisions, some of them will, regrettably, involve snap decisions where either path is fraught with disaster, and it’s simply not good enough to say “well, I wouldn’t start from here” or “let’s think about it” – the classic example being the decision order a raid on terrorists in a hostage/loss of life situation. If there was another Iranian embassy siege tomorrow, would Jeremy give the order to go in? Could he give the order to shoot down an airliner that didn’t respond, or would he dither and try to worm his way round the question?

It’s already been pointed out that Corbyn could have easily batted off the interviewers question, this ought to be bread and butter stuff for a potential prime minister – instead what Corbyn tried was classic sophistry, for all his ‘principles’ he is trying so hard to be right on and not be tied down on issues that he appears to be unable to make a simple decision – again this leads you to question his ability as a politician, let alone as potential prime minister

What you’re saying is that he needs to pander to the infantile, cretinous standards of ‘debate’ that go on in our national press, because people like you are going to make an issue out of what he says even where there isn’t one. Marvellous.

If by that you mean politicians will be more successful if they manage their output to the media sensibly, then yes, I think recent history in the UK has shown that.

There’s nothing wrong with his output to the media, it’s the media that’s the problem. And you are buying into it/perpetuating it/supporting it.

My conclusion was that when Kuenssberg used the phrase “shoot to kill” she set off a pavlovian reaction in Corbyn’s mind. For him the phrase meant the alleged concept of police and military lethal ambush or even summary execution which led to events like Loughgall, Gibraltar and the cases examined by Stalker in the 80s. The phrase was used again post Stockwell, albeit in a slightly different, tactical context. As such, whether Kuenssberg meant to or not, she triggered an awful realisation in his mind that he may, one day, be asked to sanction the use of preemptive lethal force based on intelligence and identification of suspects.

I buy this. The term ‘shoot to kill’ carries all kinds of connotations which phased him. I’m sure the phrase was chosen deliberately to make the current reasonable ROE seem a bit weird. Any middle ranking Politician in recent years would have handled it easily, as did Cameron. (I watched Ed Milliband answer questions from an Audience of youngsters before the election, it was a bit formulaic but he handled dozens of question of equal difficulty without breaking a sweat – he could have answered questions like this all day long, and he wasn’t famous for his media savvy.)

I’m watching BBC news now. They lined up a few smaller party leaders and they all managed to say something fairly sensible that wouldn’t excite the media on this topic.

Corbyn could have easily batted off the interviewers question, this ought to be bread and butter stuff for a potential prime minister

This.

There’s nothing wrong with his output to the media, it’s the media that’s the problem.

I think most people would agree with that, I certainly do. With a better media there would be less hysterical reporting of politicians words. What’s your point? That in a parallel universe Corbyn would be a success? In a parallel universe Corbyn’s physique might make him a 100m sprint record holder, so what?

And you are buying into it/perpetuating it/supporting it.

How?

he case has been fully made and discussed in the Corbyn thread so you can read it there

WHat I can read you defending what you just said on here about this comment on that other thread….that is just not true

I think most people would agree with that, I certainly do.

WHy did you describe his reply thus on page one ?

Regarding the case in point it wasn’t a grown up answer, unless by grown up you mean elderly person with Altzheimers.

Is this something else you dont have to answer ?

I assume you are just trolling here

WHat I can read you defending what you just said on here about this comment on that other thread

I’m happy to discuss that on this thread, and have been doing so. The issue of Corbyn’s lack (of otherwise) of principle has been discussed on the Corbyn thread. You can see a list there which provides the evidence you asked for.

WHy did you describe his reply thus on page one ?

Those are not contradictory views. His answer was appallingly bad as evidenced by a) The fact there are people justifying him who admit they aren’t clear on what he said b) the media storm he’s brought on himself when other politician can answer similar questions without hicup. At the same time our press are a a crock of **** as evidenced by picking up a paper or switching on the news.

I assume you are just trolling here

In which case you won’t answer, because feeding trolls is utterly stupid.

So you are now claiming there is no contradiction between you saying there is nothing wrong with his output even though you described it thus

wasn’t a grown up answer, unless by grown up you mean elderly person with Altzheimers.

Best of luck convincing folk these two mean the same thing