Jump to content

UK Politics: Electioneering


Werthead

Recommended Posts

It's risky, but it's also worth asking the question. You can't pull tens of thousands of police out of circulation and not expect it to have an impact somewhere along the line.

Fundamental questions also have to be asked about British support for state sponsors of terror, and whether money we give them for oil is being redirected back into organisations and groups involved in terrorist acts against our own people. A very strong spotlight needs to be shone on Saudi Arabia in this regard, as it should have been in 2001, and Conservative ministers actively censoring and trying to shut down all discussions in this area is curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, williamjm said:

Corbyn doesn't seem to be holding back today in his criticism of Tory policing and anti-terror policies. It seems potentially risky to make a speech that could be seen as trying to make political capital from a horrific crime, on the other hand it's also difficult to deny that it's an important election issue and we should know where the parties stand on it and there's only a few days left for that to happen. It does feel to me that it's perhaps a bit soon for the speech, even if much of what he says seems reasonable.



It's a risk, but given that Theresa May turned in what was clearly a campaign speech literally just after she suspended campaigning for the day, he's gotta take it. Of course, few outlets are going to call May on hers, but he can't let her gain that ground at this stage. Plus of course setting pure electioneering aside someone has to be calling May on her shit.

 

He really should get out tomorrow and bang the drum on that supressed report and the Amber Rudd thing, but probably won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Perhaps someone could also ask Mr Corbyn if he is still opposed to the police shooting terrorists actively carrying out attacks.



Funny you should ask. Turns out he never was, and the question the BBC claimed he was responding to wasn't the one he was actually asked.


But since you do ask, he's clarified his position today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a pretty dumb question since there are already rules that determine when and where armed police can use lethal force, not direct orders from the Prime Minister. In a situation where lethal force was not justified by those rules then an order from the PM would be illegal and should be ignored. In a situation where it was justified the order would be redundant becuase lethal force would already be legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, polishgenius said:



Funny you should ask. Turns out he never was, and the question the BBC claimed he was responding to wasn't the one he was actually asked.


But since you do ask, he's clarified his position today.

I think his original statement speaks for itself. His clarification is political self-preservation.

2 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

It was a pretty dumb question since there are already rules that determine when and where armed police can use lethal force, not direct orders from the Prime Minister. In a situation where lethal force was not justified by those rules then an order from the PM would be illegal and should be ignored. In a situation where it was justified the order would be redundant becuase lethal force would already be legitimate.

Good point. I still would not like to have a prime minister who would not support such action, regardless of whether he was able to prevent a first instance before changing the law to prevent a second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

I think his original statement speaks for itself. His clarification is political self-preservation.



His original statement scans vastly differently when you read it in the context he actually said it in. It's a far broader context. It's possible that he also meant that he wouldn't want to allow officers to shoot in specific public-danger situations, but given that all the context for suggesting he did that came from the question-that-wasn't, it's really not something you can say for sure, and his words today don't contradict what he said then.


In any case, why did you even ask if you were going to dismiss the answer as a lie anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Good point. I still would not like to have a prime minister who would not support such action, regardless of whether he was able to prevent a first instance before changing the law to prevent a second.

It would be very difficult to use the legislature to restrict police use of firearms this way. I'm going a bit above my paygrade here so if anyone with more knowledge wants to clarify or correct what I'm saying ( @BigFatCoward ) I'd welcome it. Firearms officers are only deployed in situations where it is assessed there is a threat to human life that cannot be adequately dealt with by non-firearm carrying offciers. Police can only use lethal force in direct defence of human life. But the decision to deploy armed police is not a political one, it's based on police professional decision making models. Restricting the deployment of firearms officers would require justifying why they were no longer required to defend human life in situations where the lack of firearms is deemed inadequate by the police decision-making model. That seems like a tough sell even for Corbyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ariana Grande set up a highly complex, high-profile music event for tens of thousands of people at less than a fortnight's notice. She also negotiated Liam Gallagher to perform onstage with Chris Martin, whom he has previously had a beef with.

Given the impressive level of success, I propose we ask her immediately to negotiate Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, polishgenius said:


In any case, why did you even ask if you were going to dismiss the answer as a lie anyway?

Poiticians should be asked to explain themselves, even if you think they're not going to answer honestly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Liffguard said:

It would be very difficult to use the legislature to restrict police use of firearms this way. I'm going a bit above my paygrade here so if anyone with more knowledge wants to clarify or correct what I'm saying ( @BigFatCoward ) I'd welcome it. Firearms officers are only deployed in situations where it is assessed there is a threat to human life that cannot be adequately dealt with by non-firearm carrying offciers. Police can only use lethal force in direct defence of human life. But the decision to deploy armed police is not a political one, it's based on police professional decision making models. Restricting the deployment of firearms officers would require justifying why they were no longer required to defend human life in situations where the lack of firearms is deemed inadequate by the police decision-making model. That seems like a tough sell even for Corbyn.

Never been trained with firearms, though slightly off topic there has recently been a marked increase in the number of officers i've spoken to that think we now all need to be armed (i still have major concerns re this, but i think there will be a marked increase in armed officers).

Use of force powers are S117 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Common Law and S3 of the Criminal Law Act.  The gist of all taken together is that such force can be used which is necessary in the circumstances.  if a Firearms officer is deployed, it would only be in specific circumstances where it is warranted based on the available information. The only way politicians could impact on the deployment of armed officers would be to remove the tool, or change the above legislation.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Never been trained with firearms, though slightly off topic there has recently been a marked increase in the number of officers i've spoken to that think we now all need to be armed (i still have major concerns re this, but i think there will be a marked increase in armed officers).

 

I have a 'friend' (old colleague from way back) who is a police officer (not sure at this point, specifically, what his role is) but he is practically rabid about all officers being armed - and this is something he was saying maybe two years back, so not even a recent thing. But then he is a Brexiter. So I can't take anything he says serioulsy anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit i still have literally no idea who to vote for.

Up here in Scotland its pretty much a choice of do you want another potential indyref, or not. And which party do you want to be in power to oppose said potential indyref.

Conservatives have some serious issues that i'm not happy with, but also some areas i do agree on. The Labour party seems to be all over the place and i just cannot see Corbyn as a serious leader with our countries interests as his priority.
The Lib Dems don't stand a chance at any real gains.
The only other option is the SNP but that is pretty much giving Nicola another chance at banging on about independence, something i am totally opposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hard pressed to know which thread to post this in. I just watched Trump surrogate Jeffrey Lord, a real piece of work himself, justify Trump's posts about the Mayor of London. The Mayor telling people not to be alarmed about extra police on the streets was just like Neville Chamberlain telling Londoners not to be alarmed about Nazi bombers flying over London. Trump obviously believes the British are not taking terrorism seriously, he said.

That Republican attitude should be enough to convince anyone not to vote for the Conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was against this when it was first raised; but... is it possible to withdraw the invitation for an official state visit (the full honour and regalia etc)?

 

If not, then protest posters are already being made up

http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Donald+trump+center+big4+he+is+a+cunt+big4+not+mine+credits+in+the_c98a69_6054394.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scot,

For the record, there's something wrong with my quoting function. I was intending to simply draw attention to falsehood upthread that suggested Corbyn opposes the use of firearms altogether in dealing with a terrorist threat. I don't necessarily disagree with your statement if dealing with terrorists with guns themselves, but in the UK they tend to be armed with blades or bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If you are shooting... you shoot to kill.  Anything else is dangerous to third parties.

Any shooting is dangerous: one of the injured from the weekend was hit by a stray bullet from the volley of shots the police fired.

The issue is, when is the danger of using firearms justified? In this case it clearly was. It was (believed to be) a literal life-or-death situation, with the attackers wearing what appeared to be suicide vests. (That they mocked these up suggests strongly their intention was always to be shot to death.) That meant that cornering them was not an option. But I can see that under other circumstances it might at least be possible to avoid shooting to kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...