UK General Election

[baron]

When you become a schoolmaster and I am in your class, you can give me posts like that to answer. Until then I will write what I like.

You need not have replied, I already established you had no answer. Now go stand in the corner.

 

[Craig B]

You need not have replied

Then it was pointless to ask. Renewal of Trident is unnecessary waste. Sometimes police require to be armed, but having police armed all the time is a rightwing shibboleth, like opposition to gun control in the USA. You know that. We need security services, but worship of them is a rightwing preoccupation. We must ensure that security, necessary as it may be, doesn't infringe liberty.

 

[baron]

Then it was pointless to ask. Renewal of Trident is unnecessary waste. Sometimes police require to be armed, but having police armed all the time is a rightwing shibboleth, like opposition to gun control in the USA. You know that. We need security services, but worship of them is a rightwing preoccupation. We must ensure that security, necessary as it may be, doesn't infringe liberty.

This doesn't back your claim that these things are the 'domain of the far right'. Something may be a waste of money but in what way does that put it in the domain for the far right? Corbyn's deputy, and presumably Corbyn himself, wants to ban all police from holding arms (presumably with the exception of his taxpayer-funded armed bodyguards). Then you go on to talk of 'worship' of the security services. I don't even know what this means, it certainly hasn't been talked about. If a desire to have security services, to monitor terrorists and to protect the citizens of this country is far right then I guess I, along with 90% of the country, must be a Nazi.

 

[Mid]

In another masterstroke from the political Titan The Guardian are reporting that Corbyn will apparently not take part in any TV debates if his good friend Mrs May won't:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b0e81396c86de5#block-59009dbee4b0e81396c86de5

I assume there must be some logic behind turning down the good publicity of doing a debate that the PM refuses to deign to do, but for the life of me I can't think of any reason not to do it beyond staggering political incompetence.

Well if Corbyn's U-turn on not turning up to any debates was actually planned all along I may have underestimated his or his teams political abilities:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...bate-campaign-personal-politics-live#comments

 

[Craig B]

... presumably Corbyn himself, wants to ban all police from holding arms (presumably with the exception of his taxpayer-funded armed bodyguards).

Two "presumablies" there. Poor show.

So you are complaining that Corbyn "presumably" wants to ensure that police officers confronting terrorists, ever in any circumstances, will be unarmed. If for example the Manchester criminals ever have to be arrested while in possession of arms, the police must be banned from holding weapons during this task. Are you saying that? On the basis of what statement by Corbyn do you feel entitled to state that?

 

[baron]

Two "presumablies" there. Poor show.

So you are complaining that Corbyn "presumably" wants to ensure that police officers confronting terrorists, ever in any circumstances, will be unarmed. If for example the Manchester criminals ever have to be arrested while in possession of arms, the police must be banned from holding weapons during this task. Are you saying that? On the basis of what statement by Corbyn do you feel entitled to state that?

Yes, I am saying that, on the basis of his chancellor signing a document including these words

Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police.​

then standing proudly holding it for a photo, without Corbyn offering any denial or clarification.

Then again you may be right. The idea that there is any coherence of thought in the Labour party does stretch credulity.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, I am saying that, on the basis of his chancellor signing a document including these words

Disband MI5 and special police squads, disarm the police.​

So to you the above is the same thing as "ban all police from holding arms". Or it may mean "we don't want an armed police force", which is a different thing.

It doesn't preclude their carrying firearms, on the occasions when that is called for by the tasks they are performing. It's not a "ban on their holding weapons". Is it?

 

[baron]

So to you the above is the same thing as "ban all police from holding arms". Or it may mean "we don't want an armed police force", which is a different thing.

It doesn't preclude their carrying firearms, on the occasions when that is called for by the tasks they are performing. It's not a "ban on their holding weapons". Is it?

So your contention is that "disarm the police" doesn't mean "disarm the police", but "continue to arm the police." Is that the same way in which, say, nuclear disarmament means "just let's use nukes when necessary", or to disarm a suspect means "taking away a couple of weapons but leaving the rest."? Disarm the police means disarm the police, I don't see any other definition possible.

 

[Craig B]

So your contention is that "disarm the police" doesn't mean "disarm the police", but "continue to arm the police." Is that the same way in which, say, nuclear disarmament means "just let's use nukes when necessary", or to disarm a suspect means "taking away a couple of weapons but leaving the rest."? Disarm the police means disarm the police, I don't see any other definition possible.

Yes you do. A squid is permitted to hide in a cloud of ink, but you are not permitted to create a cloud of pretended idiocy to conceal yourself in.

What authorises you to state that Corbyn believes that police officers should be banned from carrying weapons if they have need of them, e.g. when required to apprehend armed, or possibly armed, suspects? But that is not the same thing as having police forces, or squads, carrying weapons in the general course of their regular duties.

See, I produced two definitions with no trouble at all!

 

[baron]

Yes you do. A squid is permitted to hide in a cloud of ink, but you are not permitted to create a cloud of pretended idiocy to conceal yourself in.

What authorises you to state that Corbyn believes that police officers should be banned from carrying weapons if they have need of them, e.g. when required to apprehend armed, or possibly armed, suspects? But that is not the same thing as having police forces, or squads, carrying weapons in the general course of their regular duties.

See, I produced two definitions with no trouble at all!

Yes, but your definitions are bogus. My authorisation, since you ask, comes from an understanding of basic English.

"Disarm the police." That means remove arms from the police. It doesn't mean do not provide the police with any more guns. It doesn't mean disallow officers who don't really need guns from carrying guns in the future. It doesn't mean don't shove guns onto the hands of everyone who wears a uniform. It means remove. Take away. Subtract.

DIS-ARM - take a weapon or weapons away from (a person, force, or country).​

Now even if you contend that "Disarm the police" means "Remove some of the guns from the police" (it doesn't, clearly, but for the sake of argument), then by your own definition there are officers out there right now who are carrying guns but have no need to do so. So who are these people?

 

[Belgian thought]

I watched the programme, and I thought Corbyn did quite well. Rational, confident. Recent media coverage of him led me to expect a mad, gibbering antisemitic terrorist, but he didn't really come over like that.

Watched another programme this evening - a debate, again Corbyn a good bloke, Theresa May did not come over across at all

 

[Craig B]

Yes, but your definitions are bogus. My authorisation, since you ask, comes from an understanding of basic English.

"Disarm the police." That means remove arms from the police. It doesn't mean do not provide the police with any more guns. It doesn't mean disallow officers who don't really need guns from carrying guns in the future. It doesn't mean don't shove guns onto the hands of everyone who wears a uniform. It means remove. Take away. Subtract.

DIS-ARM - take a weapon or weapons away from (a person, force, or country).​

Now even if you contend that "Disarm the police" means "Remove some of the guns from the police" (it doesn't, clearly, but for the sake of argument), then by your own definition there are officers out there right now who are carrying guns but have no need to do so. So who are these people?

That is absurd. I don't know who needs them "out there right now" because I'm not privy to the duties they are all undertaking. I imagine the whereabouts of armed officers out there right now is a confidential matter. And if you know these secrets, don't tell me cos I might blurt it out to the IRA terrorist Corbyn, and that wouldn't do, would it?

 

[baron]

That is absurd. I don't know who needs them "out there right now" because I'm not privy to the duties they are all undertaking.

That's right, you don't and you're not. Which makes it even more baffling that you should defend a policy that requires such knowledge as a minimum.

 

[Craig B]

That's right, you don't and you're not. Which makes it even more baffling that you should defend a policy that requires such knowledge as a minimum.

I don't have that knowledge, but the people in charge of police forces have it, and prime ministers can order the information to be provided, (unless of course the prime minister is himself a terrorist).

 

[Wildy]

So collective punishment then? Nice.

Getting Greeks to actually pay their taxes is collective punishment? The shock! The horror!

Another problem is jurisdiction. Whatever crimes Osama did, he didn't do them on US soil. Do US courts have jurisdiction or not? You need to prove the case twice over.

I would be a legal mess par excellence before the trial could even begin.

I suspect in that case it would be a RICO trial, and since Al Qaeda have already been determined to fall under the purview of the laws then there wouldn't be any problem.

The trend is clear, Tory lead is half what it was a fortnight ago. Polls are a lagging indicator and if there was an unusual spike in young voter registrations (a spike was reported) then it is possible he will pull off a Brexit on Conservatives. It would be poetic justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2017

McHrozni

Given the non-uniform distribution of votes and the fact this is a fptp system he might still potentially have an upset win over the Tories. Perhaps May's decision to completely avoid all the debates may end up backfiring, because people would have to wonder if her decision means she's not willing to defend the policies she's putting forward.

 

[McHrozni]

Given the non-uniform distribution of votes and the fact this is a fptp system he might still potentially have an upset win over the Tories. Perhaps May's decision to completely avoid all the debates may end up backfiring, because people would have to wonder if her decision means she's not willing to defend the policies she's putting forward.

According to 538 the polls in UK systematically under-count Conservative vote more often than not. Polling in UK also doesn't work nearly as well as in USA (about average), let alone France (unusually accurate).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-k-snap-election-is-riskier-than-it-seems/

Of course it is also possible Labour will outperform the polls this time around. The chances aren't great but are not zero either. It would be poetic justice

McHrozni

 

[Aber]

Given the non-uniform distribution of votes and the fact this is a fptp system he might still potentially have an upset win over the Tories. Perhaps May's decision to completely avoid all the debates may end up backfiring, because people would have to wonder if her decision means she's not willing to defend the policies she's putting forward.

A lot of the closing is due to YouGov who are using a new methodology to estimate actual turnout, which seems to be giving Labour a large boost.

The major change in the polls seems to be Labour voters who were don't knows, because of Corbyn, coming back.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

A lot of the closing is due to YouGov who are using a new methodology to estimate actual turnout, which seems to be giving Labour a large boost.

The major change in the polls seems to be Labour voters who were don't knows, because of Corbyn, coming back.

To be fair (as someone who slagged him off) he seems to have come across quite well in the televised debates. I've only watched bits of each but he was quite good in the bits I saw - the last one had Amber Rudd attempting a 'Gotcha' by accusing him of proudly voting against every anti-terrorist measure and therefore clearly a terrorist sympathiser to which he calmly responded with 'What, like the xyz one that Theresa May, David Davies....(more names I can't remember) also voted against? I'm not against anti-terrorist measures, I'm against anti-terrorist measures that have no governance.'

Went down well with the audience and to be fair, I thought it was a good answer.

NB This should not be construed as me supporting him or thinking he'd be a good PM* - just acknowledging that he performed quite well.

*Though I do want the Tories to lose their majority because I also don't rate Theresa May and think it would be a well deserved result for someone who called a completely unnecessary election, when we could ill afford the distraction, purely because she saw an opportunity to cash in on Labour's apparently shambolic situation. Yes of course every Government calls an election when it best suits them but that's usually towards the end of the term and we had just passed legislation to stop that!

 

[baron]

To be fair (as someone who slagged him off) he seems to have come across quite well in the televised debates. I've only watched bits of each but he was quite good in the bits I saw - the last one had Amber Rudd attempting a 'Gotcha' by accusing him of proudly voting against every anti-terrorist measure and therefore clearly a terrorist sympathiser to which he calmly responded with 'What, like the xyz one that Theresa May, David Davies....(more names I can't remember) also voted against? I'm not against anti-terrorist measures, I'm against anti-terrorist measures that have no governance.'

And yet the only 'solution' to terrorism in the Labour manifesto - a subject considered so unimportant it doesn't even have its own section - is to scrap the only effective initiative currently in place - the Prevent programme (it actually says 'review' but we all know what that means). Why cheer a soundbite over the evidence of 30 years, in which Corbyn has come up with not a single domestic initiative to counter the problem of Islamic terrorism.

 

[Darat]

To be fair (as someone who slagged him off) he seems to have come across quite well in the televised debates. I've only watched bits of each but he was quite good in the bits I saw - the last one had Amber Rudd attempting a 'Gotcha' by accusing him of proudly voting against every anti-terrorist measure and therefore clearly a terrorist sympathiser to which he calmly responded with 'What, like the xyz one that Theresa May, David Davies....(more names I can't remember) also voted against? I'm not against anti-terrorist measures, I'm against anti-terrorist measures that have no governance.'

Went down well with the audience and to be fair, I thought it was a good answer.

NB This should not be construed as me supporting him or thinking he'd be a good PM* - just acknowledging that he performed quite well.

*Though I do want the Tories to lose their majority because I also don't rate Theresa May and think it would be a well deserved result for someone who called a completely unnecessary election, when we could ill afford the distraction, purely because she saw an opportunity to cash in on Labour's apparently shambolic situation. Yes of course every Government calls an election when it best suits them but that's usually towards the end of the term and we had just passed legislation to stop that!

That's really unfair, May voted for the 5 year set term governments so we didn't have this issue. And she wouldn't go back on what she has said now would she?