Thoughts for those that lost their lives in Paris

zarf2007

Tromking wrote: »

Spot on. People also need to remember the atmosphere of tension and fear that the MET were operating under at the time.

thats fine, and understandable but at the end of the day if you make a mistake at least hold your hands up and admit it.

Lying to the public does not enhance their trust in you and could well prevent someone from reporting a genuine terrorist or someone acting suspiciously in the future.

Tromking

zarf2007 wrote: »

thats fine, and understandable but at the end of the day if you make a mistake at least hold your hands up and admit it.

Lying to the public does not enhance their trust in you and could well prevent someone from reporting a genuine terrorist or someone acting suspiciously in the future.

From my recollection most people, apart from those with an ingrained antipathy toward the Police anyway,were remarkably supportive of the MET on the day and at the subsequent trial where details of the tragic error became known.
I personally draw comfort from the fact that a policeman on my behalf was willing, without reference to his own safety to tackle someone who he genuinely thought was terrorist. The State was never going to hang this chap out to dry, and rightly so.

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

From my recollection most people, apart from those with an ingrained antipathy toward the Police anyway,were remarkably supportive of the MET on the day and at the subsequent trial where details of the tragic error became known.
I personally draw comfort from the fact that a policeman on my behalf was willing, without reference to his own safety to tackle someone who he genuinely thought was terrorist. The State was never going to hang this chap out to dry, and rightly so.

I agree with your sentiment but the lies after the fact were appalling. If the Met had held their hands up and admitted that this was a tragic error caused by a mix of operational incompetence, human error, a tense situation and good, old-fashioned muck-up then I think basically everyone would have accepted that.

The botched and rather pathetic apparent attempt at a cover-up was pointless and made the police involved look bad. A rule of thumb is that people that have done the right thing don't need to lie about their actions.

princeofpounds

It strikes me how physically repulsive all of these murderers seem to be. Many of them are probably what would by most people be recognised as life's losers, with strong inferiority complexes,

You may be right in terms of inferiority complexes, although I believe a lot of psychologists like to cast it more in terms of identity - they don't belong to their adopted culture, they don't have a real link to their ancestral culture, and so they go looking for a sense of belonging.


But anyway, I don't think they are all drive by some kind of physical and aesthetic inferiority complex. The Tsarnaev brothers were pretty normal looking, and the elder one was a somewhat accomplished amateur sportsman.


A couple of the London bombers were quite normal, minus the straggly beards (and one or two were fairly intelligent and eloquent as well).


Plenty of jihadis who you see in these photos on Syria are normal too - indeed some of them are small-time pin-ups in the jihadist 'community'.


But of course there is a higher than normal share of people who were more obviously mentally unbalanced, like the shoe and underpants bombers, at least one of the Lee Rigby killers.


The point being, whilst inferiority complex may be something to do with it, a lot more drives that sort of thing than just looks.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

It was exactly that sort of thinking that saw the Tories in the wilderness for 15 years.

The Tories aren't just in power because of the SNP. They won a majority and even if Labour had won every seat in Scotland they would still be the minority party. The Tories won power because they completely reinvented themselves just as Labour did under Blair, the last Labour leader to win an election for over 41 years and counting. By the time of the next election, assuming the Tory Government makes it that far, Labour will have had 2 leaders win an election in over 50 years and spent 17 of that 51 years in power.

Mr Corbyn is taking the party backwards not forwards, I cringe when I read his policies as they read like a Labour policy document from 1985: nationalisation, unilateralism, reopen the mines.

Voters don't know what Labour stands for any more. In 2015 they have had 4 policies on the Trident replacement alone. I fear Labour's destruction as I really worry about who will replace them: the 4th-nth placed parties are a bunch of nutters (Greens or UKIP as HMLO anyone???). Worse is that, as in Scotland, they are replaced by....nobody. If the thought of the Tories having untrammeled power for the next 20 years or whatever worries me it should terrify you.

Your lot need to ditch Mr Corbyn and ditch him fast as the longer he stays and the more the shadow cabinet are forced to parrot the crap he comes out with the more they are tainted. The problem there is that he genuinely seems to represent the grass roots of the party. Now that's great but he isn't going to win the General Election with 500,000 votes.

The party has now had the chance to let off steam and rue the day it selected the wrong Miliband. Now they have had a glimpse of the future of what a Corbyn leadership means.

Labour is rapidly approaching a fork in the road.

On one route Corbyn continues and the party heads to the obscurity of being a protest party of less than 50 MPs, intellectually well founded but unelectable.

On the other, the PLP selects a credible challenger and defeats Corbyn next summer, restores some balance to the party and makes it electable. If that does not happen, the reactionary forces will begin de-selecting existing MPs and the party will indeed be over.

Sapphire

princeofpounds wrote: »

Plenty of jihadis who you see in these photos on Syria are normal too - indeed some of them are small-time pin-ups in the jihadist 'community'.

The point being, whilst inferiority complex may be something to do with it, a lot more drives that sort of thing than just looks.

Jjohn was probably was probably regarded as a 'pin-up' by those people, but he was a physically repellant individual, one with a probable huge inferiority complex, from what I saw of footage of him as a teenager (puny and with bad breath, always covering up his mouth with a jacket or shirt, etc.). He looked like someone with psychological problems. Murdering people and advertising the fact was likely his way of trying to make himself a 'big man'.

Certainly, I agree that 'a lot more drives that sort of thing than just looks'. There's also the chance to attain riches and power over others beyond anything they could achieve anywhere else, doing this through looting and murder. It's no coincidence that many of these murderers have criminal records.

In other news, I hear 'there is evidence' that the families of 'senior jihadis' in Raqqua are leaving following the most recent bombing by France and Russia. Any guesses where they might be heading, Merkel? :mad: It beggars belief what an appalling security situation Merkel and Juncker have caused in Europe, which is going to be bitterly regretted, even if the invasion is somehow stopped, given the huge numbers of completely unvetted people from the Middle East and Africa that have been allowed in.:eek:

BobQ

WannaBLoaded wrote: »

I'm not sure it is as cut and dry as you suggest, not having full parliamentary support seems to open a can of worms regarding law and financial claims against the government.

Yes cameron could probably go in if he wanted, but i actually prefer the idea of democratically seeking consensus after a thorough debate, of which has ran its course, as opposed to labours ill thought out and ill funded, border line illegal, wars. .

I hope that next time you witter on about this you consider the views of Cameron who has just told the House of Commons on taking action against ISIS that while it is nice to have UN support for action, his job is to take action on behalf of the British people and not listen to the latest opinion poll or allow British interests to be outsourced to a national UN veto. In short he will do what Blair did if he has to do it.

zarf2007

Tromking wrote: »

From my recollection most people, apart from those with an ingrained antipathy toward the Police anyway,were remarkably supportive of the MET on the day and at the subsequent trial where details of the tragic error became known.
I personally draw comfort from the fact that a policeman on my behalf was willing, without reference to his own safety to tackle someone who he genuinely thought was terrorist. The State was never going to hang this chap out to dry, and rightly so.

oh so you would be so forgiving if it was your family on the receiving end?

as others have said if they had owned up to an operational mistake then people would have accepted it. Personally I support shoot to kill when it comes to IS, its the only way to deal with them and as such mistakes will be made in the heat of the moment, but for the sake of the unfortunate victim in these mistakes, lets not lie about it.

Moby

zarf2007 wrote: »

oh so you would be so forgiving if it was your family on the receiving end?

as others have said if they had owned up to an operational mistake then people would have accepted it. Personally I support shoot to kill when it comes to IS, its the only way to deal with them and as such mistakes will be made in the heat of the moment, but for the sake of the unfortunate victim in these mistakes, lets not lie about it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/shot-dead-by-police-30-officers-convicted-0-321142.html
So true and it's not that rare either!

setmefree2

Moby wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/shot-dead-by-police-30-officers-convicted-0-321142.html
So true and it's not that rare either!

He wasn't asked about shoot to kill in any general sense - he was specifically asked about a Paris type of situation. "Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets."

The answer was straight forward - "Yes I would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on the Britain's streets."

Simples.

Trouble is, he is so inarticulate that we are all left guessing what it was he was actually trying to say.