paris
Comments
-
Why is there all this scrutiny on Corbyn? i dont give a monkeys what he thinks, in reality by 2020 he ll be 71, retired and /or thrown out!
Gives all the more credence that Labour dropped a massive bollock when choosing him. If he won't be around, all he can do is harm the party with his crackpot outlook. Anyone following him has a lot of damage to repair.0 -
Why is there all this scrutiny on Corbyn? i dont give a monkeys what he thinks, in reality by 2020 he ll be 71, retired and /or thrown out!
Gives all the more credence that Labour dropped a massive bollock when choosing him. If he won't be around, all he can do is harm the party with his crackpot outlook. Anyone following him has a lot of damage to repair.
And given the wafer thin Tory majority, Cameron not seeking a third term, the Euro referendum provide plenty of fracture points for an early election. Look at the Chancellor on the run from all the Tory MP's in marginal seats and no galvanising opposition to bond the Troy's mean the tories will eventually turn on themselves.
The race I'd be interested to see is who would be quickest "falling into a lifeboat" the Italian Concordia Captain or a MP.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
I've been to too many memorial services/2 minute silences recently.
Why can't people just be nice to each other?
Because killing and destroying people and things is hard wired into our DNA.
Unless you're the leader of the Opposition
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/16/corbyn-against-shoot-to-kill-uk-paris-attacks-labour
It's more concerning Corbyns total lack of comprehension of the mindset of the extremist in question. It's not to negotiate but simply kill as many civilians as possible.
No wonder Cameron has gone even more comatose as a Prime Minister with Corbyn "leading" the opposition.
Corbyns position and mind set is more concerning than the thoughts of similar attacks in the UK.
Read the article carefully. It seems that he is arguing for the current policy (which allows police to kill when necessary) to be maintained, rather than the decision to shoot being directed by the government.
He really should have explained that properly, though.0 -
He's still in cloud cuckoo land. Taking legal action against Jihadi John? That would really have deterred him from committing more atrocties :roll: If we hadn't vapourised the bastard."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
At the best, Corbyn is mis directing, at worst he's enept by failing to communicate clearly what his thoughts are.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
He's still in cloud cuckoo land. Taking legal action against Jihadi John? That would really have deterred him from committing more atrocties :roll: If we hadn't vapourised the bastard.
i was glad he was killed BUT i d have prefered if he d been captured, taken to USA and put on death row for many years, failed appeals and then finally the electric chair.
His death was instant and he d have known nothing about it, unlike his poor victims, plenty more will take his place.0 -
He's still in cloud cuckoo land. Taking legal action against Jihadi John? That would really have deterred him from committing more atrocties :roll: If we hadn't vapourised the bastard.
i was glad he was killed BUT i d have prefered if he d been captured, taken to USA and put on death row for many years, failed appeals and then finally the electric chair.
His death was instant and he d have known nothing about it, unlike his poor victims, plenty more will take his place.
Far too costly. The judicial process, incarceration etc etc ISIS have taken hostages before as a bargaining tool to release certain captured 'brothers'. He's dead, there's no bargaining to be done.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
That does have a certain appeal, but I agree with Pinno on this one. Just kill the ****ers, dead terrorists dont commit atrocities and can't be bargained for.He's still in cloud cuckoo land. Taking legal action against Jihadi John? That would really have deterred him from committing more atrocties :roll: If we hadn't vapourised the bastard.
i was glad he was killed BUT i d have prefered if he d been captured, taken to USA and put on death row for many years, failed appeals and then finally the electric chair.
His death was instant and he d have known nothing about it, unlike his poor victims, plenty more will take his place."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
He's still in cloud cuckoo land. Taking legal action against Jihadi John? That would really have deterred him from committing more atrocties :roll: If we hadn't vapourised the bastard.
i was glad he was killed BUT i d have prefered if he d been captured, taken to USA and put on death row for many years, failed appeals and then finally the electric chair.
His death was instant and he d have known nothing about it, unlike his poor victims, plenty more will take his place.
Nah, just vaporise the bastard. Job done!0 -
...I agree with Pinno on this one...
i... place.He's ...bastard.
The most unlikely of coalitions are forming in the face of recent happenings.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I'm with Mamba on this one. He'd rather have died a martyr than rot in a cell for years. Idiots like him are more likely to want to follow in his footsteps than if he'd been locked in a cell with a big mean bastard with an appetitite for fresh aris'. Send pictures of him and his new cell mates over every now and then.He's still in cloud cuckoo land. Taking legal action against Jihadi John? That would really have deterred him from committing more atrocties :roll: If we hadn't vapourised the bastard.
i was glad he was killed BUT i d have prefered if he d been captured, taken to USA and put on death row for many years, failed appeals and then finally the electric chair.
His death was instant and he d have known nothing about it, unlike his poor victims, plenty more will take his place.0 -
I'm with Mamba on this one. He'd rather have died a martyr than rot in a cell for years. Idiots like him are more likely to want to follow in his footsteps than if he'd been locked in a cell with a big mean bastard with an appetitite for fresh aris'. Send pictures of him and his new cell mates over every now and then.He's still in cloud cuckoo land. Taking legal action against Jihadi John? That would really have deterred him from committing more atrocties :roll: If we hadn't vapourised the bastard.
i was glad he was killed BUT i d have prefered if he d been captured, taken to USA and put on death row for many years, failed appeals and then finally the electric chair.
His death was instant and he d have known nothing about it, unlike his poor victims, plenty more will take his place.
Martyrdom presumes the false illusion of an imagined afterlife that doesn't exist. He probably had no time to blissfully contemplate his journey beyond this world. To prevent someone from martyrdom suggests that such a thing exists.
[Pedant button off]seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
OK, I take your point. But the idiots that follow him will believe he died a martyr, plus if he were rotting in a cell he'd be reminded of the fact he hadn't died a martyr on a daily basis.0
-
Let them think what they like. Their weakness is their ideology. It has no moral base. It does not even have a base in mainstream interpretations of the Quran. They are idiotically turning almost every nation on the planet (bar a few sympathisers) against them as a result of their base and violent behaviour, even to the extent that the Russians look like they are going to collude over actions on Syria. When in the last 70 years have the president of the US and the president of Russia sat down in a 'huddle' to talk without formal process?
Incarceration, investigation and judicial process is a costly waste of time. Punishment by incarceration is affording them food and shelter and some basic humanitarian rights at our expense.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
OK, I take your point. But the idiots that follow him will believe he died a martyr, plus if he were rotting in a cell he'd be reminded of the fact he hadn't died a martyr on a daily basis.
Not interested in how he would feel. I feel better that he is dead.0 -
Corbyn is wrong, though in a situation where men are killing hostages with ak47s and grenades would an OK from Cameron or May be needed first before action could be taken? is this the case now? what is he saying will change that isnt the case already?
More worryingly is Boris Johnsons admission that the Met have been training for attacks at 2 or 3 places not the 5 as in Paris, that admission is stupid, Police limitations should nt be given over like this.0 -
Corbyn is wrong, though in a situation where men are killing hostages with ak47s and grenades would an OK from Cameron or May be needed first before action could be taken? is this the case now? what is he saying will change that isnt the case already?
More worryingly is Boris Johnsons admission that the Met have been training for attacks at 2 or 3 places not the 5 as in Paris, that admission is stupid, Police limitations should nt be given over like this.
No0 -
Corbyn is wrong, though in a situation where men are killing hostages with ak47s and grenades would an OK from Cameron or May be needed first before action could be taken? is this the case now? what is he saying will change that isnt the case already?
More worryingly is Boris Johnsons admission that the Met have been training for attacks at 2 or 3 places not the 5 as in Paris, that admission is stupid, Police limitations should nt be given over like this.
No
So what is Cameron proposing then? or is it just talk?0 -
No idea. But if an ARV turned up at an incident whereby there was an assailant systematically shooting people and they had the chance to shoot him/her, do you think it reasonable that they ask for the ok from the PM?
Ending a siege and a preplanned operation would be entirely different. There would be input from and parameters set by shed loads of people.
No police officer is going to stand up in court afterwards and say he had the opportunity to save lives but didn't take it because he didn't have the ok.
Not got Cameron's quote to hand but if he is referring to suspected terrorists under surveillance, that is a different matter. I suppose it would depend on to what degree a terrorist has gone to committing an atrocity wouldn't it?
Buying detonators in a shop and running towards Wembley stadium in a suicide vest are totally different matters. As are all the stages in between. I suppose an order could be given that person A is on no account to be allowed to..... and that I assume would involve much ar5e covereing by a lot of people, perhaps up to Cabinet or PM level.
Don't jump any ticket barriers.
As I said in the other thread, Section 3 Criminal Law Act covers the use of force.A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
As long as you can show in a court of law that your actions were reasonable in the circumstances, you are acting within the law.0 -
Downing street statement Asked about policy on using firearms to tackle terrorists, he added: "These are operational decisions for police officers on the ground. There is a clear legal framework in which to operate. They have extensive training. There are no plans to change the policy."
so what exactly has Cameron proposed? fxxk all, he just dug a trap which Corbyn jumped into.
Shoot to kill sounds great in the Express or Mail but there has to be a context and Cameron isnt changing that, so meaningless.0 -
No surprise there though. If you analyse Cameron's great 4 point plan to renegotiate the european agreement, it basically boiled down to "any chance you can change a few words in a document so that I can convince my stupid electorate that I am a tough negotiator"...
The interesting thing about the Paris events is the complete turnaround in the very vocal support by the French for the borderless concept (particularly when the migrant issue first erupted) and yet the first thing they tried to do after the massacres was lock down their borders...err, but you cannot lock a door that doesn't exist!0 -
Downing street statement Asked about policy on using firearms to tackle terrorists, he added: "These are operational decisions for police officers on the ground. There is a clear legal framework in which to operate. They have extensive training. There are no plans to change the policy."
so what exactly has Cameron proposed? fxxk all, he just dug a trap which Corbyn jumped into.
Shoot to kill sounds great in the Express or Mail but there has to be a context and Cameron isnt changing that, so meaningless.
We've had a laugh at Corbyn, but now the joke is wearing thin. His own front benchers are apparently calling him a "Fu*king disgrace". He needs to go and go now. And this is from a Tory supporter who can only see Corbyn as a vote winner for us. In the name of God man, just go!0 -
Downing street statement Asked about policy on using firearms to tackle terrorists, he added: "These are operational decisions for police officers on the ground. There is a clear legal framework in which to operate. They have extensive training. There are no plans to change the policy."
so what exactly has Cameron proposed? fxxk all, he just dug a trap which Corbyn jumped into.
Shoot to kill sounds great in the Express or Mail but there has to be a context and Cameron isnt changing that, so meaningless.
We've had a laugh at Corbyn, but now the joke is wearing thin. His own front benchers are apparently calling him a "Fu*king disgrace". He needs to go and go now. And this is from a Tory supporter who can only see Corbyn as a vote winner for us. In the name of God man, just go!
Bally, this thread is about the attacks in Paris and you need to address Camerons short comings, his cuts in police man power and his policy stunts like 1900 new spies... oh really! if we need 1900 extra spies and the SAS need another £2bn why now? DC hasbeen our PM for 6 years, these threats have been known about since 9/11 and 7/7 and our threat level, which isnt decided by government has not changed!
DC is in power and at times of crisis we look to our leaders to, well, lead! Cameron, however is a stupid idiot, more interested in party politics than the defence of the nation.0 -
Downing street statement Asked about policy on using firearms to tackle terrorists, he added: "These are operational decisions for police officers on the ground. There is a clear legal framework in which to operate. They have extensive training. There are no plans to change the policy."
so what exactly has Cameron proposed? fxxk all, he just dug a trap which Corbyn jumped into.
Shoot to kill sounds great in the Express or Mail but there has to be a context and Cameron isnt changing that, so meaningless.
We've had a laugh at Corbyn, but now the joke is wearing thin. His own front benchers are apparently calling him a "Fu*king disgrace". He needs to go and go now. And this is from a Tory supporter who can only see Corbyn as a vote winner for us. In the name of God man, just go!
Bally, this thread is about the attacks in Paris and you need to address Camerons short comings, his cuts in police man power and his policy stunts like 1900 new spies... oh really! if we need 1900 extra spies and the SAS need another £2bn why now? DC hasbeen our PM for 6 years, these threats have been known about since 9/11 and 7/7 and our threat level, which isnt decided by government has not changed!
DC is in power and at times of crisis we look to our leaders to, well, lead! Cameron, however is a stupid idiot, more interested in party politics than the defence of the nation.
Mamba, there will be a successful terrorist attack in the UK. It is a question of when . How big? Who knows?
I read somewhere that the strength of the French police exceeds the combined strength of our army + police and they still suffered terrorists attacks.
Not to be complacent, because as I said, an attack will hpen, our security services are foiling attacks more often than you think.You just don't get to read about them.
2Bn more needed and 1900 spies? How much would the reduction in tax credits have saved? Hmm0 -
Mamba, there will be a successful terrorist attack in the UK. It is a question of when . How big? Who knows?
I read somewhere that the strength of the French police exceeds the combined strength of our army + police and they still suffered terrorists attacks.
Not to be complacent, because as I said, an attack will hpen, our security services are foiling attacks more often than you think.You just don't get to read about them.
2Bn more needed and 1900 spies? How much would the reduction in tax credits have saved? Hmm
we dont know anything of the sort, T May says 7 have been stopped, strange how this rarely seems to lead to trials? so i guess it depends on how they define terrorist attacks.
this country has plenty of cash (5th richest nation in the world) i dont see the relevance of your tax credits comment.
We will have even less police after the tories have finished, France showed that numbers do count (Police, Soldiers and healthcare staff/facilities) both during and in the aftermarth, all of the attackers were killed or fled and considering the viciousness of the attackers, its a miracle even more civillains were not killed.
i just dont get how, last week we didnt need 1900 more spies and extra spend on SAS but now we do, bear in mind that none of this will have any sort of effect on our security for years, either the Government got it wrong and they ve been complacent and under prepared or its just headline grabing politics?
what one would you go for?0 -
we dont know anything of the sort, T May says 7 have been stopped, strange how this rarely seems to lead to trials?
So the absence of a myriad of high profile trials means that attacks have not been foiled? IF that is the case, that means that because we have had no high scale atrocities for 10 years there must have been no threats? According to you, there would have been no threats to foil. I don't think for one minute that is what you believe but it is a consequence of your assertion. If there have been no atrocities and none have been foiled, where is the threat?
I don't get your position. On the one hand you are arguing for more expenditure to deal with the threats, now you seem to be saying that you are not sure there is a high threat?i just dont get how, last week we didnt need 1900 more spies and extra spend on SAS but now we do, bear in mind that none of this will have any sort of effect on our security for years, either the Government got it wrong and they ve been complacent and under prepared or its just headline grabing politics?
what one would you go for?
No idea and neither have you, unless you are privy to security information that the rest of us are not. The SAS is a regiment in the British army with many roles. They do not just carry out raids on embassies in London. Again, I have no idea what the £2Bn would be earmarked for. You are right though in saying that the investment would not see immediate results, but would be used in some future role or deployment. Again, no-one has told me what that could be.0 -
we dont know anything of the sort, T May says 7 have been stopped, strange how this rarely seems to lead to trials?
So the absence of a myriad of high profile trials means that attacks have not been foiled? IF that is the case, that means that because we have had no high scale atrocities for 10 years there must have been no threats? According to you, there would have been no threats to foil. I don't think for one minute that is what you believe but it is a consequence of your assertion. If there have been no atrocities and none have been foiled, where is the threat?
I don't get your position. On the one hand you are arguing for more expenditure to deal with the threats, now you seem to be saying that you are not sure there is a high threat?
No i am saying that cuts to Police numbers and the fireservice is foolhardy, as is the reduction in hospital capacity, we need these people both to prevent and deal with any attacks, the threats we have faced since 9/11 and 7/7 have not changed, proven by our threat status being the same now as it has for a long time.
When former police comms and army chiefs say similar, i take notice, cutting 5000 officers from the Met is just stupid - if we ve genuinely not the money, then we ll all have to put up with an income tax increase.
As for the governemt saying they ve foiled 7 attacks, how do we know? what was the scale of these? why have so few been charged? after all its a very serious offence
Would DC have announced this extra spending, welcome though it may be, if Paris hadnt happened, i dont believe he would, he is just grand standing.0 -
Foiled attacks do not necessarily mean arrests, prosecution, trial and conviction.
"Disruption" plays a major part where sources are protected and information harvested and a more detailed picture is built.
We can only (wrongly) guess at what counter measures, strategy and tactical tools are at the authorities disposal in this regard and it's the political masters who pull the strings.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
You can't put an ideology against the wall and shoot it dead.
It's a multi faceted approach which should be aimed at addressing some of the drivers for recruitment and radicalisation as well as militarially.
True. But decent moderate Muslim preachers could do more to combat it.
0 -
You can't put an ideology against the wall and shoot it dead.
It's a multi faceted approach which should be aimed at addressing some of the drivers for recruitment and radicalisation as well as militarially.
True. But decent moderate Muslim preachers could do more to combat it.
There have been many documented instances of young Muslim men being 'radicalised' (That's the buzzword isn't it?) in mosques. As there are only Muslims in the mosques, they are the only ones that can bring any influence to bear.0
