A Question for Tory Supporters

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Shove a picture under anybody's face and ask them to comment. Of course they would be flummoxed. A measured response requires the full facts.

Most people would at least look at try to maintain dignified. Presumably he already knew about it, since he's meant to be the PM.

buggy_boy wrote: »

That was why Corbyn said his comments against a "shoot to kill" policy. If he had been prime minister and prosecuted those officers and changed policy to make sure officers do not shoot unless they are 100% sure then would those recent events in London where the terrorists were swiftly dispatched be so quickly resolved?

I don't think he wants to prevent them shooting entirely or to prosecute anyone who feels they have to. He just wants the police to at least consider arresting them first rather than a "shoot to kill" policy. If you can safely detain them, do so, and if not, kill them.

This is a man don't forget who after the Sailsbury poisoning said we should send a sample of the toxin to Putin to ask him if it came from them and that we should do nothing as we cannot be 100% sure.

You mean the man who wanted to wait on the evidence before potentially declaring war on Russia?

He can't even make a decision about which side of Brexit he is on. He is the only person in the whole of the UK it seems that say's he is "Neutral" on Brexit.

He's made it clear he's there to facilitate Brexit, if he makes his views clear it serves no constructive purpose and results in accusations of bias. It doesn't matter if he's for it or against it; he'll do what the people want.

Can anyone honestly say they have no view one way or the other on Brexit?

Lots of people couldn't care less about it.
Personally I don't really mind if we leave or not, as long as we don't stuff our economy and freedoms.

jimi_man

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't think he wants to prevent them shooting entirely or to prosecute anyone who feels they have to. He just wants the police to at least consider arresting them first rather than a "shoot to kill" policy. If you can safely detain them, do so, and if not, kill them.

Can we just dispel this shoot to kill policy myth since there isn’t one. Police, shoot to stop rather than intentionally trying to kill or shooting them in the leg or anything. If stopping someone from detonating an explosive vest involves shooting them 10 times then so be it.

Corbyn really doesn’t need to get involved either. The law is very clear on the use of force. Police do not shoot people willy nilly, and if they can be arrested without the use of too much force (arrests do actually need some force) then that’s what will happen.

Unfortunately there seem to be a good few people I’ve heard talking about the recent shooting, saying that they should have shot him in the leg (like that’s easy to do) or some such garbage. They are trained to shoot for the chest (the greatest mass and the most likely to stop the person from doing what they are doing) so the perception is that they shot to kill him, which simply isn’t true. If police did shoot to kill then they wouldn’t bother doing first aid afterwards, but they do.

Arklight

As this seems to have got lost earlier in the thread, and the BBC certainly aren't making a fuss about it:

86% of Conservative ads have been shown to be wholly or partly lies after independent verification.

0% of Labour ads have been found to be untrue.

If they're lying to you now, what are they really going to be like with a majority government?

Takedap

jimi_man wrote: »

Corbyn really doesn’t need to get involved either. The law is very clear on the use of force. Police do not shoot people willy nilly, and if they can be arrested without the use of too much force (arrests do actually need some force) then that’s what will happen.

.

He didn't "get involved". He was asked a direct question by a journalist & then castigated for giving a reasonable, thought-out answer rather than a knee jerk soundbite.

princeofpounds

Having said that labour do normally fund the NHS better and they want it to work because it was their invention.

Not actually the case. It's much more complicated than that.


The idea of universal modern health provision of course originated outside of political parties first.


But inside government, the rough sequence was:


The Beveridge report was the first official government policy proposal universal health provision. It was written by a Liberal, under a Conservative-Labour coalition, and established a cross-party consensus for the idea in general terms.


The White Paper that officially outlined the specific creation of a National Health Service was written by a Conservative Health Minister, Willink.


The legislation and implementation of the NHS was then carried out by Health Minster Bevan under a Labour government. There was opposition from the Conservatives, but the dividing line was not actually NHS vs. no NHS. It was actually about national control vs. local control.
Ironically, one of the biggest opponents of the creation of the NHS were the British Medical Association.

kinger101

Arklight wrote: »

As this seems to have got lost earlier in the thread, and the BBC certainly aren't making a fuss about it:

86% of Conservative ads have been shown to be wholly or partly lies after independent verification.

0% of Labour ads have been found to be untrue.

If they're lying to you now, what are they really going to be like with a majority government?

Are you serious? John McDonnell (possibly the only Labour MP more vile than Corbyn) recently claimed Labour would save families £6,700 a year.

He neglected to mention that this would only apply to families with two children, one age 2 and one of infant school age, for which both parents traveled to work by train using a season ticket.

A recent feature on BBC's More or Less suggested this scenario applied to around 1000 families in the UK.

Either he knew he was lying, or he's worse at maths than Dianne Abbot (which might not even be possible)

buggy_boy

Herzlos wrote: »

I don't think he wants to prevent them shooting entirely or to prosecute anyone who feels they have to. He just wants the police to at least consider arresting them first rather than a "shoot to kill" policy. If you can safely detain them, do so, and if not, kill them.

So are you saying he thought brave firearms officers were going round shooting people instead of trying to arrest them, what a load of rubbish obviously it has always been the case to try to arrest and shooting would be the last option. That is some spin you are trying to put on it but it was very clear at the time he was criticising officers for their actions in the Jean Charles de Menezes. Any knee jerk reaction at that time could have lead to more loss of life in the following attacks.

You mean the man who wanted to wait on the evidence before potentially declaring war on Russia?

Rubbish we are not at war with Russia, there was never any talk of that, he was questioning the our security experts and was clearly wrong.

He's made it clear he's there to facilitate Brexit, if he makes his views clear it serves no constructive purpose and results in accusations of bias. It doesn't matter if he's for it or against it; he'll do what the people want.

But he said that in 2016, he promised again in 2017 to abide by the 2016 referendum and take us out of the EU, it that is the case and he does what the people want why does he not say he will take us out while staying the single market and customs union? Ill tell you why because he is lying to the remainer's. Nobody in the Labour party even supports is proposed deal, who is going to negotiate it and why would the EU give us a good deal if they know its going to a vote, they want us to stay.

Lots of people couldn't care less about it.
Personally I don't really mind if we leave or not, as long as we don't stuff our economy and freedoms.

Really come on, so you have never said:

Brexit was introduced by the Tories to bring the party together, and has been managed by the Tories ever since. It's hardly fair (or credible) to blame anyone else for it

or

Unthinking acolyte is a bit rich coming from someone who wants Brexit at any cost just to upset the establishment that gain most from it.

or

Brexit is being enacted despite the consequences on a 52/48 split

or my favourite

Because Brexit will only make us worse off for fictional gain


Im sure I could go on, you realise people can search your posts right? You are clearly a remainer and your trying to prove a point by saying you dont mind either way... Well you actually just totally proved my point, you show me someone that doesn't care and ill show you a fool or a liar (Take you pick with Corbyn or better both)

jimi_man

Arklight wrote: »

If they're lying to you now, what are they really going to be like with a majority government?

Well today is the opportunity to redress that.

Herzlos

buggy_boy wrote: »

Im sure I could go on, you realise people can search your posts right? You are clearly a remainer and your trying to prove a point by saying you dont mind either way... Well you actually just totally proved my point, you show me someone that doesn't care and ill show you a fool or a liar (Take you pick with Corbyn or better both)

I honestly don't care if we leave or not, I'm just being honest about what leaving means and why we're all here. Leaving will make a lot of people worse off in the short term (I'm alright, though) and will result in me being back in the EU within a few years (either by UK rejoining, Scotland splitting and joining, or me relocating).


All I want with regards to Brexit is for us to be honest about it and do a proper job of whatever we decide we want to do. It's a stupid idea, but we have a lot of stupid ideas.

Malthusian

jimi_man wrote: »

Unfortunately there seem to be a good few people I’ve heard talking about the recent shooting, saying that they should have shot him in the leg (like that’s easy to do) or some such garbage. They are trained to shoot for the chest (the greatest mass and the most likely to stop the person from doing what they are doing) so the perception is that they shot to kill him, which simply isn’t true.

The other factor worth bearing in mind is that if you shoot for a limb or the head, you are more likely to miss and hit an innocent bystander. Even if you are a crack shot, the bullet is more likely to exit and do the same than if you aim for the mass of organs and bone in the chest.

When people say "the police should have shot him in the leg" what they want to say is "they shouldn't have shot him at all because he was on a righteous crusade against Western imperialism", but the nonsense about aiming for the leg is more politically acceptable.

If police aimed for the leg then more innocent civilians (/ Western imperialist infidels) would die from stray bullets and terrorists alike, as night follows day, so it comes to the same thing.