the snap general election thread

kinger101

masterwilde wrote: »

you realise these current terrorists all want to be shot and killed by police so that Allah can give them the 70 virgins.

not killing them presents an opportunity to arrest detain and imprison, thus taking away part of what the suicide terrorists want.

Again i qualify this but stating not those last lot in london with fake suicide vests

Could you explain how the police should detain someone wearing a suicide belt?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Latest Survation - Tory lead of 1% - and some really interesting commentary around young voter turnout.

http://survation.com/conservative-lead-labour-dropped-16-points-month-whats-going/

HUGE note of caution however as the surveys were completed just before the London attacks - other polls may well swing the other way later this week.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's why we have separation of the legislature and the judiciary. It really doesn't matter what one MP's personal opinion is, even if they are the PM.

Agreed.

But don't tell me that if your leader is against what you do, it is helpful. Ever worked for a boss who didn't support you, even though you did a good job.

Our security services deserve strong backing all the time not just when you want to be elected!

Joe_Horner

setmefree2 wrote: »

I guess you're one of those hug a terrorist types - we deserve it - it's all our fault...so we should suuuuufffer...let's invite more people who hate us to our country...

The liberal left that filled our country with jahadis that hate us ...
You couldn't make it up...

Maybe our security services should be ashamed of themselves?

For the avoidance of doubt on this issue:

While you make up trite little soundbites like "hug a terrorist", the current government is actively supporting and arming a country that we KNOW is financing and supporting the very groups that are launching the terror attacks here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

This is a matter of public record, yet you choose to ignore that and listen instead to misrepresented propaganda about what someone might do.

Quite why you think that's acceptable really is beyond me. I can only assume that, like the Tories obviously do, you consider the profits of selling guns to be more important than actually stopping the attacks - after all, if the guns you sell are later used to kill your own citizens, that's not your fault, is it? :mad:

ThinkingOutLoud_2

wotsthat wrote: »

I doubt a British PM has ever made a decision that couldn't have waited an hour or two.

But then if half their decisions take two hours - they won't achieve very much let alone keep pace with reality.

It is a luxury they do have when they choose - however unlike the security forces who have to act in real time.

Tromking

Joe_Horner wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt on this issue:

While you make up trite little soundbites like "hug a terrorist", the current government is actively supporting and arming a country that we KNOW is financing and supporting the very groups that are launching the terror attacks here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-email-isis-saudi-arabia-qatar-us-allies-funding-barack-obama-knew-all-a7362071.html

This is a matter of public record, yet you choose to ignore that and listen instead to misrepresented propaganda about what someone might do.

Quite why you think that's acceptable really is beyond me. I can only assume that, like the Tories obviously do, you consider the profits of selling guns to be more important than actually stopping the attacks - after all, if the guns you sell are later used to kill your own citizens, that's not your fault, is it? :mad:

So given your views on Saudi Arabia, you would support the wholesale closure of Wahhabist Saudi financed Mosque`s and 'Schools' based in the UK?

Joe_Horner

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

It is a luxury they do have when they choose - however unlike the security forces who have to act in real time.

Which is why there's a chain of command that allows decisions to be made at various levels rather than all having to filter to the top of the tree. Which, incidentally, would still mean Her Majesty ratifying every action by our forces.

Just one of the reasons why I'm a socialist royalist btw - it's a really nice safeguard to have should our government ever try to get too oppressive, knowing that the military would obey HM over the PM should it come to it. Makes it a little difficult to introduce martial law without a genuinely compelling reason.

The point is, one person's personal opinion doesn't matter in our system because it's different (and better than) the Americans. Corbyn openly recognises that PM is not a presidential position no matter how much the last few have tried to make it so.

Joe_Horner

Tromking wrote: »

So given your views on Saudi Arabia, you would support the wholesale closure of Wahhabist Saudi financed Mosque`s and 'Schools' based in the UK?

How does that follow from stopping selling arms for them to pass on to the people who're killing us? Genuinely confused by your logical disconnect there.

gfplux

For me the present issue over security comes down to numbers.

From fast moving reports in the media do I understand correctly the following?
There are 3000 individuals who represent a high threat of a terrorist act
There are an additional 20,000 (or 17,000) who might be of interest.

Since 2010 there are 20,000 less Police officers including 1,300 trained firearms officers.

The terrible incident in London show that IMMEDIATE response worked well.

The issue surely is that with large numbers of potential terrorists who need WATCHING in some way having 20,000 less officers around makes that job more difficult even if all the other Police are working more efficiently with mobile phones and tablets.
A Government is expected to foresee the security needs of the country. Security is or SHOULD NOT be on the list of things that can have spending cut.
The present Government have spent seven years cutting the money spent on Britains internal security and that should be considered unexeptable.

In my opinion while the Government is responsible for this Theresa May personally has been at the heart of this particular issue during those 7 years.
I am not suggesting anybody else could have done better but it is the Conservatives who have been in charge and therefore they need to be held to account.

Enterprise_1701C

Joe_Horner wrote: »

How does that follow from stopping selling arms for them to pass on to the people who're killing us? Genuinely confused by your logical disconnect there.

If they are actively supporting and arming a country that we KNOW is financing and supporting the very groups that are launching the terror attacks here, then maybe we should not allow them any form of base or teaching in this country.

No logical disconnect there, you are basically branding them as terrorist sympathisers, so they should be either totally treated as such or treated as someone to make money from.