UK General Election

[baron]

All Governments in the U.K. review both the defense and security arrangements in their first 100 days. It is both to ensure Ministers understand what is in place as they now have higher clearance and to ensure that it will still fit against their queens speech policies.

I understand that. Not sure what point you're making.

 

[baron]

And whilst I'm here, the May / Corbyn fest last night. Neither did well but whilst the equivocation and dodging of May was uncomfortable to watch, the sheer arrogance of Corbyn and his disdain, or incalculable naivety, when it comes to national security was quite shocking. He really is a foul little weasel of a man.

 

[catsmate]

If Austerity works then why has UK food bank usage soared in the past decade? Why are women more at risk of domestic violence?

Because the UK elected a Conservative government who's attitude towards the poor and vulnerable is basically contempt.

 

[catsmate]

Labour needs a few back bench MPs like Corbyn, asking awkward questions and generally being a thorn in the side of the leadership. That's a valuable role, for which he was ideal. He is not the right man for his current role.

Indeed. Etherege would make a terrible headmaster.

 

[McHrozni]

I'll go ahead and call this election a (mini) landslide for Conservatives, due to the two terrorist attacks during the campaign. Rally around the flag plus questions about Corbyns' ability to province security to the country will outweigh his momentum and the same questions about Theresa May.

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

This is when a bias in the mainstream newspapers will have an effect. The fact that May had been in control of the very counter terrorism policies she is now decrying won't be brought up as a negative and a "then why didn't you do it before?"

 

[McHrozni]

This is when a bias in the mainstream newspapers will have an effect. The fact that May had been in control of the very counter terrorism policies she is now decrying won't be brought up as a negative and a "then why didn't you do it before?"

Yes, but that needs a couple of weeks to filter through to enough voters. There isn't enough time left for terrorism to cause a major vote of no confidence on Conservatives, I think.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

McHrozni

 

[baron]

Can Corbyn be any more reprehensible? On the back of the recent attack, in which the jihadis were taken out in minutes by armed police, he has made a u-turn on his policy of shoot to kill, which he has opposed for 30 years! What a disgusting opportunistic liar. He has consistently boasted that he has opposed all terror legislation since 1983, and he and his cronies McDonnel and Abbott would not only disarm the police should they get into power, but they would wipe the terrorist DNA database, scrap the security services and MI5, scrap the Prevent program, abolish TPIMs and essentially give terrorists free reign to do whatever they liked. And he would probably call them his friends, like he does with HAMAS and the IRA. Christ, I hate that man.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This is when a bias in the mainstream newspapers will have an effect. The fact that May had been in control of the very counter terrorism policies she is now decrying won't be brought up as a negative and a "then why didn't you do it before?"

Indeed. It's amazing to note the difference between the mainstream press coverage and the stuff doing the rounds elsewhere on social media.

Theresa May is selling arms to Saudi covering up links between the saudis and terrorists defunding the police forces and driving wedges into EU cooperation on counter terrorism meanwhile Corbyn is a threat to national security because he won't nuke Iran (or something)

Recent times demonstrate perfectly that the facts are meaningless nowadays. All that matters is the narrative.

 

[Craig B]

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).

Now we will see. Police were carrying arms and bumped off the terrorists within eight minutes of the commencement of the London Bridge attack.

Presumably this will give Corbyn an opportunity to repeat his presumable demand for police to be banned from holding arms. With the exception of his taxpayer funded bodyguards. (Are police personnel engaged in other duties not also paid from public funds?)

 

[baron]

Now we will see. Police were carrying arms and bumped off the terrorists within eight minutes of the commencement of the London Bridge attack.

Presumably this will give Corbyn an opportunity to repeat his presumable demand for police to be banned from holding arms. With the exception of his taxpayer funded bodyguards. (Are police personnel engaged in other duties not also paid from public funds?)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11869125#post11869125

 

[Craig B]

(Corbyn would) scrap the security services and MI5, scrap the Prevent program, abolish TPIMs and essentially give terrorists free reign to do whatever they liked. And he would probably call them his friends,

Probably, again. (You and these probablies! Oh, I see you've added an "essentially" just to be on the safe side.)

But he hasn't has he? What a hypocrite; no wonder you hate him!

It's free rein by the way, like a loose horse. Not reign, like the Queen.

 

[baron]

Probably, again. (You and these probablies! Oh, I see you've added an "essentially" just to be on the safe side.)

But he hasn't has he? What a hypocrite; no wonder you hate him!

He hasn't done any of these things, no. Gee, I wonder what the reason for that would be? Could it be that... he can't, as he's not Prime Minister and his party is not in power? It's an outlandish suggestion but there just might be something in it.

It's free rein by the way, like a loose horse. Not reign, like the Queen.

I'm well aware of that, it was an automatic error. Pointing out this off-topic piece of trivia proves you have no argument.

 

[Craig B]

He hasn't done any of these things, no. Gee, I wonder what the reason for that would be? Could it be that... he can't, as he's not Prime Minister and his party is not in power? It's an outlandish suggestion but there just might be something in it.



I'm well aware of that, it was an automatic error. Pointing out this off-topic piece of trivia proves you have no argument.

Was he Prime Minister when he probably stated that essentially terrorists were his friends? Well, he's still not Prime Minister, and he's probably not saying it now. Maybe there's something in it, you never know.

I usually try to correct automatic errors when they happen, and I commend the practice to you, because essentially they occur with quite high probability.

 

[Darat]

Can Corbyn be any more reprehensible? On the back of the recent attack, in which the jihadis were taken out in minutes by armed police, he has made a u-turn on his policy of shoot to kill, which he has opposed for 30 years! What a disgusting opportunistic liar. He has consistently boasted that he has opposed all terror legislation since 1983, and he and his cronies McDonnel and Abbott would not only disarm the police should they get into power, but they would wipe the terrorist DNA database, scrap the security services and MI5, scrap the Prevent program, abolish TPIMs and essentially give terrorists free reign to do whatever they liked. And he would probably call them his friends, like he does with HAMAS and the IRA. Christ, I hate that man.

I suppose this is as factually accurate as your usual rants? I.e. Not.

 

[baron]

I suppose this is as factually accurate as your usual rants? I.e. Not.

I've yet to see you even attempt to address the topic, preferring instead to troll me after every post.

 

[baron]

Was he Prime Minister when he probably stated that essentially terrorists were his friends? Well, he's still not Prime Minister, and he's probably not saying it now. Maybe there's something in it, you never know.

I usually try to correct automatic errors when they happen, and I commend the practice to you, because essentially they occur with quite high probability.

Gibberish.

 

[dudalb]

Yes, but that needs a couple of weeks to filter through to enough voters. There isn't enough time left for terrorism to cause a major vote of no confidence on Conservatives, I think.

Again, I hope I'm wrong.

McHrozni

Some of Corbyn badly phrased statemants about the police and national security will bite labor in the butt.
Already preparing for the Corbyn supporters here to blame it all on the media and "Fake News".

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Can Corbyn be any more reprehensible? On the back of the recent attack, in which the jihadis were taken out in minutes by armed police, he has made a u-turn on his policy of shoot to kill, which he has opposed for 30 years! What a disgusting opportunistic liar. He has consistently boasted that he has opposed all terror legislation since 1983, and he and his cronies McDonnel and Abbott would not only disarm the police should they get into power, but they would wipe the terrorist DNA database, scrap the security services and MI5, scrap the Prevent program, abolish TPIMs and essentially give terrorists free reign to do whatever they liked. And he would probably call them his friends, like he does with HAMAS and the IRA. Christ, I hate that man.

This is what he actually said back in 2015:

Mr Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.
"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.
"But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing."

Not sure that's quite how you interpreted it but it is a bit vague. Bolding mine.

 

[baron]

This is what he actually said back in 2015:

Mr Corbyn said: "I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general - I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive.
"I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can, there are various degrees for doing things as we know.
"But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing."

Not sure that's quite how you interpreted it but it is a bit vague. Bolding mine.

Yeah, basically a typical Corbyn word salad. I mean seriously, what does this mean, "I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can"? and this "There are various degrees for doing things."?

"There are various degree for doing things"? Honestly, you can't even parody him, he's almost as bad as Abbott (see the news for her latest cringe-making interview).