silentP Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Yes indeed. Always check reporting on Jeremy Corbyn by looking at the source. He is deliberately misrepresented all the time to try and smear what he says and what he means. Shocking and unfair tactics by the Tories, they are despicable. It has nothing to do with the Tories. The video was used on todays Daily Politics programne as reference only to the Shoot to kill policy and whether or not Jeremy Corbyn still held that (2015) view. His answer was more protracted than has been stated. The question of shoot to kill along with many others surrounding security was aimed at Dominic Raab and shadow Health Sec. John Ashworth. It's worth watching the programme if you have the option, there is blustering by both parties along with lots of evasive answering, a tradition with politicians. ---------- Post added 05-06-2017 at 16:14 ---------- At add to what sgtkate said, keep in mind that the people who carry out these sorts of attacks tend to be gullible/easily manipulated. The very qualities that make them susceptible to being brainwashed into carrying out an attack are ones that the intelligence services will find useful in getting information out of them. It's probably another reason why those persuading them to attack people are so keen on them dying during the attack. If your last point is true it would certainly explain why they wore hoax bomb vests. ---------- Post added 05-06-2017 at 16:23 ---------- With respect sibon, the first outcome is hardly something to be wished for, and the second outcome is solvable through enforced isolation. The UK lacks a 'supermax' for these sorts of animals. From a resources point of view, undoubtedly. But from the point of view of civil liberties and the rule of law... Look, with this particular threat, the UK can either stay the democratic bastion of due process and fairness that it portrays itself to be (current approach)...or out-terrorise the terrorists (preventative extrajudicial killing, denied a Muslim burial, all assets seized and redistributed to victims fund, all relatives indiscriminantly rounded up and deported to their choice of Syrian or Libyan hellhole if they provably never shopped the extremist at least once). Do or do not, there is no try. Talking about this the other day and this should be a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Are you confusing a mainstream political party with SPECTRE? No, but looking after the UK isn't enough for them, their ego and sense of self entitlement is so big they want to meddle in world affairs, invade countries, rule Europe, stuff like that. They think we should still have an empire (probably think we still do...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I actually just found the video. What he actually says he's against it in general, and to use means to prevent terrorists letting off weapons when you can. Seems entirely reasonable to arrest terrorists when possible. For example the Rigby killers were apprehended and brought to trial. Killing them gives them what they want. They want to be martyrs and they want a war on our streets. The apprehension of the Rigby killers was an amazing piece of police work. Both shot, neutralized, but able to stand trial and not be martyrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
area 51 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I would like to see all our police armed in the current climate we live in.We are one of only a handful of countries who do not arm their police,the others being norway,new zealand,ireland and iceland.I know its a controversial statement but what is everybody else's feelings on this.Too many brave police officers have been killed or injured because they have no way of protecting themselves other than a truncheon.A truncheon isnt a lot of use against guns and knives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazndave Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Corbyn states he is not happy with shoot to kill policy regarding terrorists. No surprise when he gets comprehensively beaten in election. More torie lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peak4 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Corbyn states he is not happy with shoot to kill policy regarding terrorists. No surprise when he gets comprehensively beaten in election. This one seems to be getting quoted quite a lot of late, I can't say I'm a wild Corbyn fan, but I hate to see anyone being deliberately misquoted. I suspect that the Guardian may have different political affiliations to your good self, but this seems to be a reasonably impartial report. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/theresa-may-attacks-corybn-shoot-to-kill-stance-as-bbc-clip-is-shared-online The Independent one quoted earlier seems to back it up nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I would like to see all our police armed in the current climate we live in.We are one of only a handful of countries who do not arm their police,the others being norway,new zealand,ireland and iceland.I know its a controversial statement but what is everybody else's feelings on this.Too many brave police officers have been killed or injured because they have no way of protecting themselves other than a truncheon.A truncheon isnt a lot of use against guns and knives. The police themselves were asked if they wanted to be armed. The voted overwhelmingly not to, but most did say they wanted tasers. I'd say tasers were a good compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaffa1 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 More torie lies. How can it be lies when it was shown on yesterday morningso television programmes. It shown you 2015 footage after 7 people were slaughtered. His very words were " I am not happy with shoot to kill because it is dangerous." Of course it's bloody dangerous, smart man eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Not being happy with something, does not mean you won't do it. To be honest; I'd be a lot more concerned with people who are actually happy shooting to kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peak4 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 How can it be lies when it was shown on yesterday morningso television programmes. It shown you 2015 footage after 7 people were slaughtered. His very words were " I am not happy with shoot to kill because it is dangerous." Of course it's bloody dangerous, smart man eh? They weren't actually his very words. At least give the whole of the quote accurately, and then please try reading the link I posted earlier to put it into context. 4.20 onwards if you don't want to listen to it all. "I am not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security which prevents people firing off weapons where you can and 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 has got to be the priority." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now