That's not too bad - the Police Federation can be dismissed as having a personal gripe against Theresa. IDS's proclamation that the Labour's more effective policies were 'watered down' by the government is far more dangerous.
Your problem is quite simple, most of the front line police are fully aware of the problems and are not happy bunnies, or the military, or the NHS workers from senior consultants to junior trainees and tea ladies, and probably most importantly, the Civil Service. This whole election, from the very start, is beginning to get the feel and smell of a very British Coup.
The Tories need to be bloody careful here. Their campaign has been bad enough. If they contrive to make anti-terrorism policy a negative for themselves, then that really will put the tin hat on it.
That plus what the Police Federation is saying do make Enough is Enough sound like empty rhetoric, nothing more. As ever, May is exceptionally fortunate to be facing Corbyn.
After Thursday, can we have a redraw for leaders of all 3 major English parties? Need The Donald or Sir Alllllllan to sit them down and tell them they are all fired.
Sadly, I suspect this is the first election in an age where the main leaders will remain in situ.
Farron might go, I suppose.
Depressing isn't it. I really hoped that the Lib Dem might make some gains, Corbynism destroyed and not too big a Tory majority.
Now it looks like at best small Tory majority, Corbynism legitimized and here to stay and Lib Dem screwed.
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
Iran, for all its faults, is much more palatable than Saudi Arabia. Iran is more pluralistic, and less mysoginistic. It has a proud Persian history which long predates Islam, it has a literature and a culture which draws on many sources, not just the Koran.
If there is hope for longterm reform in Islam - an Enlightenment - my guess is that it will come from Iran, where, ironically and relatedly, the jihadist revolution first caught fire.
So we should keep our distance from Tehran, but not give up on them.
The only reason we should have any dealing with Saudi is because, if the royal family was toppled, it would almost certainly be replaced by something much much worse. ISIS with a trillion dollars.
Iran qua Persia: you may be right.
The Iranian regime: no. It is not "less mysogynistic". One of the first decisions of the Iranian regime was to bring the age of consent down (to 9, I think.) It uses rape as a punishment in prisons.
Its values are revolting.
True. But Iran is not just the regime, and I think Sean is right about the medium/long term possibility of a more liberal society there. The west's no compromise attitude to the regime has only strengthened it over the years. One of the few foreign policy successes under Obama was nascent engagement - which is now being reversed.
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
It is not the same as Saudi Arabia at all. Where are the Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues in Saudi Arabia? - They are certainly practicing openly in Iran. There are similar numbers of synagogues in Tehran and London.
Iran is not a 'good' country but it is a whole lot better than Saudi Arabia.
It may not be quite as ghastly as Saudi Arabia but it is quite ghastly enough. A country which uses rape as a punishment, hangs gay men from cranes, permits children to be married and sponsors Holocaust denial conferences does not have values compatible with Western values.
We should not fall into the trap of giving it a free pass simply because it hates Saudi Arabia. Both countries drink deep from the well of extremism and both have used - and continue to use - their money and influence to spread their extremist versions of Islam, both of which are utterly incompatible with life in a civilised Western liberal democracy.
I have not suggested giving it a free pass. But it is hypocritical, perverse and self defeating to continue to fund and support Saudi Arabia and treat it as a staunch ally whilst ostracising and attacking Iran which is undoubtedly more moderate. The roots of current Islamic extremism and attacks on the west lie in Saudi Arabia not Iran.
I think Sean's wrong about an Enlightenment, though. That's far more likely to take hold first in Europe's moslem communities.
It already has in some countries like Bosnia, but there is now Saudi funding pouring into Bosnia and Albania so things have started going backwards just like it did here. The younger Muslims are more radicalised than their parents ever were.
That's the scary thing about the common profile of these people. They are 2nd / 3rd generation, often uni students, you would hope think this ain't bad compared to what parents tell me what life was like.
It's an old, old story - young, educated, modern... suddenly the world looks wrong. So back to the faith of your fathers. The radical re-mix version.
Oliver Cromwell etc.
We don't have the Sikhs doing that though. Back in the day in the homeland, they weren't exactly unknown for getting involved in some violence.
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
Iran, for all its faults, is much more palatable than Saudi Arabia. Iran is more pluralistic, and less mysoginistic. It has a proud Persian history which long predates Islam, it has a literature and a culture which draws on many sources, not just the Koran.
If there is hope for longterm reform in Islam - an Enlightenment - my guess is that it will come from Iran, where, ironically and relatedly, the jihadist revolution first caught fire.
So we should keep our distance from Tehran, but not give up on them.
The only reason we should have any dealing with Saudi is because, if the royal family was toppled, it would almost certainly be replaced by something much much worse. ISIS with a trillion dollars.
Iran has the situation where the state preaches Death To The West. So naturally the younger generation tend the other way.
Will he mention why it was a good idea to call a by-election in 2008 in order to curb the detention time for alleged terror suspects?
Complete bollocks from you there.
No one who actually knew anything about counter terrorist work actually wanted the extension. It was just another stupid statist, control freak stunt by Gordon Brown. When the former head of MI5 says your idea is dumb it might be worth listening to them.
Didn't really appreciate the un-parliamentary observation but hey-ho!
Unlike yourself I am no expert on counter-terrorism although I seem to recall that there were conflicting arguments from both sides.
I don't particularly want to defend Brown, but the tag of 'stunt' was, most people agreed at the time, appropriate for Davis' ridiculous by-election.
As has been stated further down Davis was on the same page as Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott over this issue. Interesting company to keep!
I don't subscribe to the idea that you should decide whether an idea is worth supporting or not based on who other Parliamentarians support it. It is a fatuous argument for those who have no other argument to make.
@SouthamObserver - I saw that live this morning. Kay Burley was rather taken aback by the comment about TMay badmouthing the police. He made the point about if this happened in a provincial town the response time would be much longer. Not sure what can be done about that, but so far the bad guys seem intent on going after city centre locations.
Sounds a bit fatuous to me, at any previous time under any government the response time would be pretty poor in the province. At no time has there been ARVs circulating in provincial towns, and that's unlikely to chance even in the face of a persistent campaign, we dont have remotely enough specialists, and 20,000 bobbies in panda's won't help.
It's similar in a sense to living in the country. You accept that response times for ambulance, fire brigade etc will be (in some cases) far longer.
There is no sensible argument for having armed police permanently circulating in say, Loughborough, Kings Lynn or Oswestry.
In the days after Manchester there were armed police on patrol in Newark.
There are armed police circulating everywhere - they are out in patrol cars, as standard operating practice, across the UK
"There is, to be frank, far too much tolerence of extremism in our country."
Different tone to after Manchester.
Yes, and very deliberate. May had no choice really. 'Keep calm, and bury your head in the sand' will not cut it any more.
Part political - yes, of course, but she could have made that speech during any part of a Parliament. Very effective in seizing the headlines and the narrative, done in unfortunate circumstances, but necessary all the same. She had to make that speech for all sorts of reasons.
She is also correct - enough is enough with the institutional appeasement and turning a blind eye mentality that has spread in this country like a cancer. It has to stop, and if that also means pissing off the Saudis, then so be it.
It's difficult to frame a convincing response when her position can be summarised as "I've had my head in the sand for seven years and this just shows I should pull it out."
That is true, but the perception among the public is that the Left are the appeasers and blind eye turners.
May - 'enough is enough, things have to change' - direct, and taps into public sentiment Labour - 'our communities must not be divided' - equivocation
3: May - Enough is enough 4: Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill.
May - Enough is enough - 20,000 fewer police. Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill - Restore 20,000 police posts.
Discuss ....
20,000 bobbies wont make any difference, the key is specialist armed police and intelligence services, both of which Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell want to abolish. No further discussion required.
Try convincing the public that 20,000 fewer police makes no difference in low level community intelligence gathering or general policing or that some of the 20,000 wouldn't have been armed response personnel.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer nurses and doctors makes the NHS better.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer carers with make the social care sector better.
I doubt the Conservatives will be majoring on their cuts to police in the coming days.
I think Sean's wrong about an Enlightenment, though. That's far more likely to take hold first in Europe's moslem communities.
It already has in some countries like Bosnia, but there is now Saudi funding pouring into Bosnia and Albania so things have started going backwards just like it did here. The younger Muslims are more radicalised than their parents ever were.
That's the scary thing about the common profile of these people. They are 2nd / 3rd generation, often uni students, you would hope think this ain't bad compared to what parents tell me what life was like.
It's an old, old story - young, educated, modern... suddenly the world looks wrong. So back to the faith of your fathers. The radical re-mix version.
Oliver Cromwell etc.
We don't have the Sikhs doing that though.
Hindus and Sikhs don't live in a perpetual state of victim status blaming the rest of the world for our own failures. If we're unemployed it's our fault for not being sufficiently qualified and we'll go and get more qualifications or more experience, if girls aren't interested then we'll look at why that is.
Muslim people and young men in particular want to blame the rest of the world for their own failings, it is easier than looking within for improvement. It makes them easy to radicalise by these hate preachers when the religion includes stuff about killing infidels and treating unbelievers like animals etc...
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country.
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
I did not make the argument that any enemy of Saudi should be considered Britain's friend. That would be idiotic. Iran does not fund terrorist networks in Britain or anywhere else. The country is no longer controlled by crazy ayatollahs. The only reason Iran is demonised, and the only reason that Britain has proscribed Hezbollah, is to help Israel.
There are many British citizens in foreign jails, including some who have broken foreign laws which are different from British ones. There are also many foreign citizens in British jails.
Salafist jihadists literally call for the murder of all Shiites.
Iran is also much more tolerant internally than not only Saudi and Qatar but also some poorer Arab regimes. (That was not true 30 years ago.) There is the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, yes. But although I would not in any way support any kind of physical attack on Rushdie, he knew what he was doing when he wrote a book depicting the prophet Mohammed as a pig-f*cking son of a wh*re. The fatwa is wrong and should be removed, but there is such a thing as provocation.
Why do friends have to share your values on everything? I would agree, though, that Britain should not condone the use of the death penalty or the brutality of corporal punishment in any other country - whether that's Iran, Singapore or the United States.
I fundamentally disagree with you over Rushdie. Free speech, free thought are not provocation.
There is a local resident here who has been jailed for no reason that anyone can understand.
The local Labour MP has campaigned for her release. A very different case from someone jailed for breaking foreign laws in a country whose judicial and penal system is one we can trust. Iran does not have such a system.
Iran does fund terrorism round the globe and has done for years.
There are very few good guys in the Middle East. Iran is not one of them. It may be marginally less awful in some limited respects than others but that is not saying much, frankly.
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused. That is not allowed in war, and it should not be allowed in other conflicts either.
That is a different situation from when psychotic killers are running amok slitting throats and stabbing chests and necks with the aim of murdering as many people as possible. I am not aware of any part of the political spectrum which does not support shooting to kill when the alternative is to let such murders continue.
If that type of terrorism had happened in the 1970s, I would have thought that every part of the political spectrum would have supported shoot to kill then too, except perhaps some tiny cultist and probably spooked-up factions spouting a mixture of political extremism and acid freak Satanism - they are the only exceptions I could even imagine.
3: May - Enough is enough 4: Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill.
May - Enough is enough - 20,000 fewer police. Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill - Restore 20,000 police posts.
Discuss ....
It doesn't matter how many people you have, it matters how many effective people you have.
The same thinking is prevalent in many public services - that the only important number is how many people are employed, as opposed to how effectively the service as a whole operates.
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
.
If there is hope for longterm reform in Islam - an Enlightenment - my guess is that it will come from Iran, where, ironically and relatedly, the jihadist revolution first caught fire.
So we should keep our distance from Tehran, but not give up on them.
The only reason we should have any dealing with Saudi is because, if the royal family was toppled, it would almost certainly be replaced by something much much worse. ISIS with a trillion dollars.
Iran qua Persia: you may be right.
The Iranian regime: no. It is not "less mysogynistic". One of the first decisions of the Iranian regime was to bring the age of consent down (to 9, I think.) It uses rape as a punishment in prisons.
Its values are revolting.
True. But Iran is not just the regime, and I think Sean is right about the medium/long term possibility of a more liberal society there. The west's no compromise attitude to the regime has only strengthened it over the years. One of the few foreign policy successes under Obama was nascent engagement - which is now being reversed.
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
Press TV ? Wasn't there a prominent politician who regularly opined for them and was happy to collect their largess ? Name escapes me for the moment.
Two prominent politicians. One of them had a thing about a certain Mr H.
Looking at the wiki page at least 4 former British MPs have served as presenters for them
George Galloway Ken Livingstone Derek Conway Lembit Opik
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
Press TV ? Wasn't there a prominent politician who regularly opined for them and was happy to collect their largess ? Name escapes me for the moment.
Two prominent politicians. One of them had a thing about a certain Mr H.
Looking at the wiki page at least 4 former British MPs have served as presenters for them
George Galloway Ken Livingstone Derek Conway Lembit Opik
I think Sean's wrong about an Enlightenment, though. That's far more likely to take hold first in Europe's moslem communities.
It already has in some countries like Bosnia, but there is now Saudi funding pouring into Bosnia and Albania so things have started going backwards just like it did here. The younger Muslims are more radicalised than their parents ever were.
That's the scary thing about the common profile of these people. They are 2nd / 3rd generation, often uni students, you would hope think this ain't bad compared to what parents tell me what life was like.
It's an old, old story - young, educated, modern... suddenly the world looks wrong. So back to the faith of your fathers. The radical re-mix version.
Oliver Cromwell etc.
We don't have the Sikhs doing that though.
Hindus and Sikhs don't live in a perpetual state of victim status blaming the rest of the world for our own failures. If we're unemployed it's our fault for not being sufficiently qualified and we'll go and get more qualifications or more experience, if girls aren't interested then we'll look at why that is.
Muslim people and young men in particular want to blame the rest of the world for their own failings, it is easier than looking within for improvement. It makes them easy to radicalise by these hate preachers when the religion includes stuff about killing infidels and treating unbelievers like animals etc...
The thing is this is happening on top universities campuses, not just in the "ghetto" with no jobs prospects, while the Sikhs, Hindus, Chinese kids are way more socially liberal than their parents would like them to be.
I think Sean's wrong about an Enlightenment, though. That's far more likely to take hold first in Europe's moslem communities.
It already has in some countries like Bosnia, but there is now Saudi funding pouring into Bosnia and Albania so things have started going backwards just like it did here. The younger Muslims are more radicalised than their parents ever were.
That's the scary thing about the common profile of these people. They are 2nd / 3rd generation, often uni students, you would hope think this ain't bad compared to what parents tell me what life was like.
It's an old, old story - young, educated, modern... suddenly the world looks wrong. So back to the faith of your fathers. The radical re-mix version.
Oliver Cromwell etc.
We don't have the Sikhs doing that though. Back in the day in the homeland, they weren't exactly unknown for getting involved in some violence.
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
If there is hope for longterm reform in Islam - an Enlightenment - my guess is that it will come from Iran, where, ironically and relatedly, the jihadist revolution first caught fire.
So we should keep our distance from Tehran, but not give up on them.
The only reason we should have any dealing with Saudi is because, if the royal family was toppled, it would almost certainly be replaced by something much much worse. ISIS with a trillion dollars.
Iran qua Persia: you may be right.
The Iranian regime: no. It is not "less mysogynistic". One of the first decisions of the Iranian regime was to bring the age of consent down (to 9, I think.) It uses rape as a punishment in prisons.
Its values are revolting.
True. But Iran is not just the regime, and I think Sean is right about the medium/long term possibility of a more liberal society there. The west's no compromise attitude to the regime has only strengthened it over the years. One of the few foreign policy successes under Obama was nascent engagement - which is now being reversed.
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused. That is not allowed in war, and it should not be allowed in other conflicts either.
That is a different situation from when psychotic killers are running amok slitting throats and stabbing chests and necks with the aim of murdering as many people as possible. I am not aware of any part of the political spectrum which does not support shooting to kill when the alternative is to let such murders continue.
If that type of terrorism had happened in the 1970s, I would have thought that every part of the political spectrum would have supported shoot to kill then too, except perhaps some tiny cultist and probably spooked-up factions spouting a mixture of political extremism and acid freak Satanism - they are the only exceptions I could even imagine.
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused.
Amazing - PIRA shot off duty members of the RUC or prison staff - I mean they could have arrested them
"There is, to be frank, far too much tolerence of extremism in our country."
Different tone to after Manchester.
Yes, and very deliberate. May had no choice really. 'Keep calm, and bury your head in the sand' will not cut it any more.
Part political - yes, of course, but she could have made that speech during any part of a Parliament. Very effective in seizing the headlines and the narrative, done in unfortunate circumstances, but necessary all the same. She had to make that speech for all sorts of reasons.
She is also correct - enough is enough with the institutional appeasement and turning a blind eye mentality that has spread in this country like a cancer. It has to stop, and if that also means pissing off the Saudis, then so be it.
It's difficult to frame a convincing response when her position can be summarised as "I've had my head in the sand for seven years and this just shows I should pull it out."
That is true, but the perception among the public is that the Left are the appeasers and blind eye turners.
May - 'enough is enough, things have to change' - direct, and taps into public sentiment Labour - 'our communities must not be divided' - equivocation
Simple but effective politics.
Even the phrase "our communities", plural, is a problem.
3: May - Enough is enough 4: Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill.
May - Enough is enough - 20,000 fewer police. Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill - Restore 20,000 police posts.
Discuss ....
20,000 bobbies wont make any difference, the key is specialist armed police and intelligence services, both of which Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell want to abolish. No further discussion required.
Try convincing the public that 20,000 fewer police makes no difference in low level community intelligence gathering or general policing or that some of the 20,000 wouldn't have been armed response personnel.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer nurses and doctors makes the NHS better.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer carers with make the social care sector better.
I doubt the Conservatives will be majoring on their cuts to police in the coming days.
Catch 22. Try telling the public that income tax will have to go up by 5% to cover all the things they want the country to do.
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
Press TV ? Wasn't there a prominent politician who regularly opined for them and was happy to collect their largess ? Name escapes me for the moment.
Two prominent politicians. One of them had a thing about a certain Mr H.
Looking at the wiki page at least 4 former British MPs have served as presenters for them
George Galloway Ken Livingstone Derek Conway Lembit Opik
I must confess to being confused for a while, I wasn't sure which one had a thing with David Herdson...!
Opik make a bit of a tit of himself (again) by running a Panorama type show on Press TV one episode of which was investigating the independence of the UK Press, apparently with a straight face.
(...)does not have values compatible with Western values.
What is your view of Chinese state funding in British schools? There are about 100 "Confucius" classrooms in Britain, all funded by the Chinese state, a state which not only executes an awful lot of people but also harvests many of their organs. Confucius classrooms exist at both state and private schools, and they represent a massive propaganda effort by the Chinese state. Nothing Iran does is on anything like that scale.
Will he mention why it was a good idea to call a by-election in 2008 in order to curb the detention time for alleged terror suspects?
Complete bollocks from you there.
No one who actually knew anything about counter terrorist work actually wanted the extension. It was just another stupid statist, control freak stunt by Gordon Brown. When the former head of MI5 says your idea is dumb it might be worth listening to them.
Didn't really appreciate the un-parliamentary observation but hey-ho!
Unlike yourself I am no expert on counter-terrorism although I seem to recall that there were conflicting arguments from both sides.
I don't particularly want to defend Brown, but the tag of 'stunt' was, most people agreed at the time, appropriate for Davis' ridiculous by-election.
As has been stated further down Davis was on the same page as Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott over this issue. Interesting company to keep!
I don't subscribe to the idea that you should decide whether an idea is worth supporting or not based on who other Parliamentarians support it. It is a fatuous argument for those who have no other argument to make.
I seem to recall that in some quarters there was seen to be some merit in keeping potentially dangerous people in custody until it could be determined whether they had a case to answer. Safer than letting them out on the streets to do there worst. I understand too there was a counterpoint.
I was not constructing an argument to say that if an issue was supported by Corbyn, ipso facto it must be spurious. Although some might argue his track record would suggest otherwise.
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
It is not the same as Saudi Arabia at all. Where are the Christian Churches or Jewish Synagogues in Saudi Arabia? - They are certainly practicing openly in Iran. There are similar numbers of synagogues in Tehran and London.
Iran is not a 'good' country but it is a whole lot better than Saudi Arabia.
It may not be quite as ghastly as Saudi Arabia but it is quite ghastly enough. A country which uses rape as a punishment, hangs gay men from cranes, permits children to be married and sponsors Holocaust denial conferences does not have values compatible with Western values.
We should not fall into the trap of giving it a free pass simply because it hates Saudi Arabia. Both countries drink deep from the well of extremism and both have used - and continue to use - their money and influence to spread their extremist versions of Islam, both of which are utterly incompatible with life in a civilised Western liberal democracy.
I have not suggested giving it a free pass. But it is hypocritical, perverse and self defeating to continue to fund and support Saudi Arabia and treat it as a staunch ally whilst ostracising and attacking Iran which is undoubtedly more moderate. The roots of current Islamic extremism and attacks on the west lie in Saudi Arabia not Iran.
Agree. Don't agree that Iran is really "moderate" in any sense we would recognise.
We've been attacked by Islamist extremists for nearly 40 years now. The roots lie both in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both need to be tackled.
How is another matter. But pretending that Iran is somehow cuddly is self-deluding.
SeanT's video is lovely but he's being naive in thinking that this presages some sort of Islamic enlightenment
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused. That is not allowed in war
Could you cite a reference for where killing operational combatants without at attempt to arrest is forbidden in international law? Killing surrendering combatants, yes. Killing non-combatants, yes. But operational combatants?
We should stop all funding by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran and Pakistan (itself heavily funded/influenced by the Saudis) of schools, mosques, madrassas, university chairs etc in this country. Politicians who appear on their propaganda arms should be called out for such stupidly naive behaviour.
It's about time a British government stood up to the Saudi dictatorship.
Why do you include Iran on your list?
Iran funds terrorist groups. It imprisons our citizens for no good reason and has incited people here to kill someone for writing a book. Its propaganda arm, Press TV, is a disgrace. It propagates views about women, gays and Jews which are wholly incompatible with Western values in just the same way as the Saudi view is. Just because it is the enemy of the Saudis does not make it our friend.
Press TV ? Wasn't there a prominent politician who regularly opined for them and was happy to collect their largess ? Name escapes me for the moment.
Two prominent politicians. One of them had a thing about a certain Mr H.
Looking at the wiki page at least 4 former British MPs have served as presenters for them
George Galloway Ken Livingstone Derek Conway Lembit Opik
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused. That is not allowed in war, and it should not be allowed in other conflicts either.
Actually it is allowed in war. What do you think snipers do? Anyone with a weapon is considered a valid target in war unless they are explicitly surrendering.
As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
/
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.
There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.
What name ?
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
It's the official full name of the party, even today. But you are right that this came about when they merged with the Liberal Unionists, who had split from the Liberals over Irish Home Rule. I believe I am right that Heseltine was one of the last people to stand as a Liberal Unionist.
Will he mention why it was a good idea to call a by-election in 2008 in order to curb the detention time for alleged terror suspects?
Complete bollocks from you there.
No one who actually knew anything about counter terrorist work actually wanted the extension. It was just another stupid statist, control freak stunt by Gordon Brown. When the former head of MI5 says your idea is dumb it might be worth listening to them.
Didn't really appreciate the un-parliamentary observation but hey-ho!
Unlike yourself I am no expert on counter-terrorism although I seem to recall that there were conflicting arguments from both sides.
I don't particularly want to defend Brown, but the tag of 'stunt' was, most people agreed at the time, appropriate for Davis' ridiculous by-election.
As has been stated further down Davis was on the same page as Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott over this issue. Interesting company to keep!
I don't subscribe to the idea that you should decide whether an idea is worth supporting or not based on who other Parliamentarians support it. It is a fatuous argument for those who have no other argument to make.
I seem to recall that in some quarters there was seen to be some merit in keeping potentially dangerous people in custody until it could be determined whether they had a case to answer. Safer than letting them out on the streets to do there worst. I understand too there was a counterpoint.
I was not constructing an argument to say that if an issue was supported by Corbyn, ipso facto it must be spurious. Although some might argue his track record would suggest otherwise.
Given that I believe Corbyn might hold the record in Parliament for voting against his own party I suspect you will find many occasions when he and the Tories have been on the same side in a vote. It may well have been for very different reasons but as I say, the mere fact that he is voting one way does not mean the cause is wrong.
And we have a basic and very important legal principle of Habeas Corpus is Britain. It is one of the things worth fighting for in our country and if you change that fundamental principle in response to terrorist threats then you are most definitely letting them win.
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused. That is not allowed in war, and it should not be allowed in other conflicts either.
Actually it is allowed in war. What do you think snipers do? Anyone with a weapon is considered a valid target in war unless they are explicitly surrendering.
Indeed. Otherwise air forces, submarines, artillery and missiles would all have to be banned in their entirety as none can conduct arrests of combatants. And stand off naval engagements would be banned too.
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused. That is not allowed in war
Could you cite a reference for where killing operational combatants without at attempt to arrest is forbidden in international law? Killing surrendering combatants, yes. Killing non-combatants, yes. But operational combatants?
Thanks for this. I may have been mistaken. On a brief perusal, I have not found anything in international law that requires that an enemy combatant on an operation must be offered a chance to surrender. You may well know this field of law better than I do? What is the definition of "operational"? If an enemy combatant is walking unarmed from A to B, without backup, in furtherance of operational aims, and one's own forces have 10 heavily armed soldiers not engaged with any other task and fully able to arrest him without risk to anyone, it's legal to kill him without warning? Or if one has the intelligence, to watch him until those are the circumstances and to kill him then?
On "shoot to kill": in some instances members of the IRA who were on operations were killed without any attempt to arrest them when they could easily have been arrested without any deaths or injuries being caused. That is not allowed in war, and it should not be allowed in other conflicts either.
Actually it is allowed in war. What do you think snipers do? Anyone with a weapon is considered a valid target in war unless they are explicitly surrendering.
Yes, OK. Does that apply if they do not have a weapon but are still taking part in an operation, e.g. carrying a message or waiting to receive one?
3: May - Enough is enough 4: Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill.
May - Enough is enough - 20,000 fewer police. Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill - Restore 20,000 police posts.
Discuss ....
It doesn't matter how many people you have, it matters how many effective people you have.
Indeed. However are you suggesting the the 20,000 were ineffective?
Numbers and quality matter. I prefer both.
Yes because CT resources haven't been cut to any great note plus SS resources for CT have risen over years. The only way numbers matters is if you prefer a similar approach to NI where they parked themselves in the the middle of difficult areas in a big fat building, patrolled relentlessly, did road checks, and generally disrupted lives. Bluntly the people of England perhaps aren't up for it and, maybe this is harsh but the level of the threat in terms of frequency maybe doesn't warrant it. Anyway the apparently lost 20 000 simply wouldn't be near enough to adopt it to the greatest extent. Most losses probably weren't in the areas where its most needed either.
Ask most cops in England do they want to be armed and, by a fair majority if I recall correctly, they say no. Thats an error. The ability to shoot quickly and well matters. In threat terms the situation back at home is less from Republicans than from Islamic Extremists on the mainland (though by many measures of threat assessment not by much) but we arm everyone with proper gear and train them
Tactically the individuals picked a crap target for longevity of attack but PR wise its sound. Its near to considerable police resources of which a high proportion are armed. They failed to create siege situation they looked to be aiming for as well to drag out the attack.
Whilst the concept of low level intelligence in areas via patrolling does have a point, there is a political fear of how thats going to look if they are seen to be bearing down with resources where Muslims congregate. Visible gathering via uniformed officers requires you to stop people, question, take details and frankly be a pain in the arse every single day. No matter how many badges you have, the will isn't there to deploy. If you take the SS figures as gospel (PR aside), you are talking tens of thousands of people of interest. Most, beyond your Internet only jihadis, will be within fairly well defined geographical zones but there is no will to sit on them via routine boring policing.
As much as people don't comprehend or maybe want to, CT efforts against the Islamic extremists is still in V2.0 of its existence not V3 or 4, and it does have, but also lacks some depth in both low and high value informants. It has technical capabilities to burn.
Just two final notes before I go take some exercise.
The lads behind recent attacks and many foiled ones tend to stay close to home or a have substantive proportion of their circle close to the planned attack point.
Given the long held Islamic idea of attacking the UK across multiple cities (and lets not forget it isn't just IS, Al Qaeda & LIFG exist and still have elements here) , it shouldn't take a genius to work out where the possibilities of another location are if we are in an uptempo phase.
Will he mention why it was a good idea to call a by-election in 2008 in order to curb the detention time for alleged terror suspects?
Complete bollocks from you there.
No one who actually knew anything about counter terrorist work actually wanted the extension. It was just another stupid statist, control freak stunt by Gordon Brown. When the former head of MI5 says your idea is dumb it might be worth listening to them.
Didn't really appreciate the un-parliamentary observation but hey-ho!
Unlike yourself I am no expert on counter-terrorism although I seem to recall that there were conflicting arguments from both sides.
I don't particularly want to defend Brown, but the tag of 'stunt' was, most people agreed at the time, appropriate for Davis' ridiculous by-election.
As has been stated further down Davis was on the same page as Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott over this issue. Interesting company to keep!
I don't subscribe to the idea that you should decide whether an idea is worth supporting or not based on who other Parliamentarians support it. It is a fatuous argument for those who have no other argument to make.
I seem to recall that in some quarters there was seen to be some merit in keeping potentially dangerous people in custody until it could be determined whether they had a case to answer. Safer than letting them out on the streets to do there worst. I understand too there was a counterpoint.
I was not constructing an argument to say that if an issue was supported by Corbyn, ipso facto it must be spurious. Although some might argue his track record would suggest otherwise.
Given that I believe Corbyn might hold the record in Parliament for voting against his own party I suspect you will find many occasions when he and the Tories have been on the same side in a vote. It may well have been for very different reasons but as I say, the mere fact that he is voting one way does not mean the cause is wrong.
And we have a basic and very important legal principle of Habeas Corpus is Britain. It is one of the things worth fighting for in our country and if you change that fundamental principle in response to terrorist threats then you are most definitely letting them win.
Extending the timescale before a court is consulted in itself does not necessarily breach the principle of Habeas Corpus, so long as the timescale itself is pre-determined. Guantanamo Bay or the internment of suspects like IRA members in the 1970s was not being proposed.
Thanks for this. I may have been mistaken. On a brief perusal, I have not found anything in international law that requires that an enemy combatant on an operation must be offered a chance to surrender. You may well know this field of law better than I do? What is the definition of "operational"? If an enemy combatant is walking unarmed from A to B, without backup, in furtherance of operational aims, and one's own forces have 10 heavily armed soldiers not engaged with any other task and fully able to arrest him without risk to anyone, it's legal to kill him without warning? Or if one has the intelligence, to watch him until those are the circumstances and to kill him then?
There are a number of factors that go into what is permissible under the Geneva Conventions or the Additional Protocols thereto. Carrying a weapons is not, in itself, a test. For example, military communications centers or air defence early radar warning systems are all valid targets, whether or not the persons involved are armed. As would be anyone carrying military communications or, indeed, any combatant capable of taking up arms who has not yet surrendered, whether or not they are armed.
The targeting of industry and infrastructure that supports a war effort is generally considered permitted. Thus attacks by the Coalition in Iraq on power stations, communications systems, key roads and bridges, etc... And, of course, the famous Dambusters.
But this is all subject to a principle of proportionality - the collateral civilian damage must be proportional to the military objective achieved. This is where it gets murky, and there is less than consensus. Many would now, for instance, argue that the dam buster raids would not meet any objective proportionality assessment. Even less so Dresden. And the ICRC (the keeper of international humanitarian law or rules of war) has even argued that any use of nuclear weapons would fail the proportionality test. This has, of course, been disputed by the nuclear powers.
With all that said, the rules of war were developed from the rules of chivalry. So, if there is a chance to get someone to surrender without danger to your own troops, then there should be a preference for that (in my view). This is for at least three very good reasons: 1. the moral high ground 2. a live person can potentially give intelligence 3. if it is known by the enemy that you don't allow them to surrender, they will always fight to the death.
3: May - Enough is enough 4: Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill.
May - Enough is enough - 20,000 fewer police. Corbyn - Opposes shoot to kill - Restore 20,000 police posts.
Discuss ....
20,000 bobbies wont make any difference, the key is specialist armed police and intelligence services, both of which Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell want to abolish. No further discussion required.
Try convincing the public that 20,000 fewer police makes no difference in low level community intelligence gathering or general policing or that some of the 20,000 wouldn't have been armed response personnel.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer nurses and doctors makes the NHS better.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer carers with make the social care sector better.
I doubt the Conservatives will be majoring on their cuts to police in the coming days.
Catch 22. Try telling the public that income tax will have to go up by 5% to cover all the things they want the country to do.
TANSTAAFL
Try telling the British Public that the top 5% of taxpayers are going to have their tax rate increased to cover all things they want the country to do. Spot the difference?
Comments
May - 'enough is enough, things have to change' - direct, and taps into public sentiment
Labour - 'our communities must not be divided' - equivocation
Simple but effective politics.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer nurses and doctors makes the NHS better.
Try telling the public that 20,000 fewer carers with make the social care sector better.
I doubt the Conservatives will be majoring on their cuts to police in the coming days.
Muslim people and young men in particular want to blame the rest of the world for their own failings, it is easier than looking within for improvement. It makes them easy to radicalise by these hate preachers when the religion includes stuff about killing infidels and treating unbelievers like animals etc...
There is a local resident here who has been jailed for no reason that anyone can understand.
http://camdennewjournal.com/article/were-lucky-to-have-tulip-writes-husband-of-west-hampstead-woman-jailed-in-iran
The local Labour MP has campaigned for her release. A very different case from someone jailed for breaking foreign laws in a country whose judicial and penal system is one we can trust. Iran does not have such a system.
Iran does fund terrorism round the globe and has done for years.
There are very few good guys in the Middle East. Iran is not one of them. It may be marginally less awful in some limited respects than others but that is not saying much, frankly.
That is a different situation from when psychotic killers are running amok slitting throats and stabbing chests and necks with the aim of murdering as many people as possible. I am not aware of any part of the political spectrum which does not support shooting to kill when the alternative is to let such murders continue.
If that type of terrorism had happened in the 1970s, I would have thought that every part of the political spectrum would have supported shoot to kill then too, except perhaps some tiny cultist and probably spooked-up factions spouting a mixture of political extremism and acid freak Satanism - they are the only exceptions I could even imagine.
Numbers and quality matter. I prefer both.
I must confess to being confused for a while, I wasn't sure which one had a thing with David Herdson...!
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/667702715158429696
Bonus podcast:
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/871359089774821376
NEW THREAD
2001 2011
Christian 71.58% 59.49%
Muslim 2.71% 4.41%
Hindu 0.95% 1.32%
Sikh 0.57% 0.43%
Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religion
Same pattern across Europe. Look at the 5-10% countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
I'd be even more impressed if they nailed Paranoid Android.
Amazing - PIRA shot off duty members of the RUC or prison staff - I mean they could have arrested them
TANSTAAFL
I was not constructing an argument to say that if an issue was supported by Corbyn, ipso facto it must be spurious. Although some might argue his track record would suggest otherwise.
We've been attacked by Islamist extremists for nearly 40 years now. The roots lie both in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both need to be tackled.
How is another matter. But pretending that Iran is somehow cuddly is self-deluding.
SeanT's video is lovely but he's being naive in thinking that this presages some sort of Islamic enlightenment
Hurd, Mayhew and Hailsham were Liberal Unionists
And we have a basic and very important legal principle of Habeas Corpus is Britain. It is one of the things worth fighting for in our country and if you change that fundamental principle in response to terrorist threats then you are most definitely letting them win.
Ask most cops in England do they want to be armed and, by a fair majority if I recall correctly, they say no. Thats an error. The ability to shoot quickly and well matters. In threat terms the situation back at home is less from Republicans than from Islamic Extremists on the mainland (though by many measures of threat assessment not by much) but we arm everyone with proper gear and train them
Tactically the individuals picked a crap target for longevity of attack but PR wise its sound. Its near to considerable police resources of which a high proportion are armed. They failed to create siege situation they looked to be aiming for as well to drag out the attack.
Whilst the concept of low level intelligence in areas via patrolling does have a point, there is a political fear of how thats going to look if they are seen to be bearing down with resources where Muslims congregate. Visible gathering via uniformed officers requires you to stop people, question, take details and frankly be a pain in the arse every single day. No matter how many badges you have, the will isn't there to deploy. If you take the SS figures as gospel (PR aside), you are talking tens of thousands of people of interest. Most, beyond your Internet only jihadis, will be within fairly well defined geographical zones but there is no will to sit on them via routine boring policing.
As much as people don't comprehend or maybe want to, CT efforts against the Islamic extremists is still in V2.0 of its existence not V3 or 4, and it does have, but also lacks some depth in both low and high value informants. It has technical capabilities to burn.
The lads behind recent attacks and many foiled ones tend to stay close to home or a have substantive proportion of their circle close to the planned attack point.
Given the long held Islamic idea of attacking the UK across multiple cities (and lets not forget it isn't just IS, Al Qaeda & LIFG exist and still have elements here) , it shouldn't take a genius to work out where the possibilities of another location are if we are in an uptempo phase.
The targeting of industry and infrastructure that supports a war effort is generally considered permitted. Thus attacks by the Coalition in Iraq on power stations, communications systems, key roads and bridges, etc... And, of course, the famous Dambusters.
But this is all subject to a principle of proportionality - the collateral civilian damage must be proportional to the military objective achieved. This is where it gets murky, and there is less than consensus. Many would now, for instance, argue that the dam buster raids would not meet any objective proportionality assessment. Even less so Dresden. And the ICRC (the keeper of international humanitarian law or rules of war) has even argued that any use of nuclear weapons would fail the proportionality test. This has, of course, been disputed by the nuclear powers.
With all that said, the rules of war were developed from the rules of chivalry. So, if there is a chance to get someone to surrender without danger to your own troops, then there should be a preference for that (in my view). This is for at least three very good reasons:
1. the moral high ground
2. a live person can potentially give intelligence
3. if it is known by the enemy that you don't allow them to surrender, they will always fight to the death.