coldel

Its very anti-labour though the policy? Cutting police numbers, stretching them too thin across the transport network - given the current issues we have in London...

Yes I think even the most die-hard Labour supporter cannot seriously consider her a genuine cabinet minister who can actually make decisions. Surprised Labour havent jumped all over the 'police merging' promise in the Tory manifesto, merging transport police and MOD police (with others I cannot remember off the top of my head) which is a quite thinly veiled way of saying they will merge and then make redundant any roles that cross over and save money...

I have never seen such an attack on a politician though, Murnaghan literally said 'have you actually read the report' and started to call out specifics which she just kept saying 'yes thats important' she didnt understand what physical resilience was in the context of the report. Then he just said right up 'is it true that Corbyn is attempting to remove you from the media spotlight after a series of high profile errors' along with 'you do not book your media appearances with your Labour team you do it yourself' - in the end she defended herself by stating 'I am the shadow home secretary' as if its meant something! Shocking interview, worse than the police cost one.

Christ alive did anyone see the Dianne Abbot interview on sky last night. She set it up to talk specifically about the recent terror events and didnt read the report into anti-terror recommendations prior to the interview, then clearly tried to bluff her way through it until she got blatantly called out on it. The woman is a car crash, people were worried about Corbyn being unelectable, but I think he has done a really good job so far, its dear Dianne who seems to be doing her utmost to dent any Labour challenge. Apparently she pulled out of an interview on TV this morning citing 'ill health' I wonder if Labour spin has finally said enough is enough...

Sold - thread locked

I think all that gear gives you a better chance, but when up against a guy willing to die and in a blood crazed frenzy even if you hit him he is likely to keep coming - all it takes is a slash on your leg/face/neck/arm and hit an artery and you are pretty much dead.

And have people throwing bricks through their windows, harassing them, potentially seriously injuring or killing them - without any due cause for doing so? What if per chance you had a drink with someone of that list, and people knew that you knew that person, and decided that spraying 'terrorist sympathiser' on your house and harassing your children and family was the next course of action - would that be ok?

...and when some jihadis tool up ambush these groups who are not trained and have no legal right to do what they do you end up nothing short of gang warfare? ...or these vigilante groups get it wrong and start killing people mistakenly

I think the solution is to erode their influence abroad and to continue to work hard at making them outcasts in their own religious groups here in the UK so they become more visible to intelligence agencies. Simply rounding people up is effectively putting a plaster over a wound that never heals, you need to go right to the root cause and hit them there. Just my tuppence worth as a complete non-expert on foreign affairs and anti-terror intelligence.

Just seemed like one of the good guys, such a distinctive voice - the story behind Wallace and Grommit is a good one too, that Nick Park as a student rang him and asked if he would voice over something for him and he offered to do it for free if Nick put £50 to his favourite charity saying he just wanted to help out a poor student.

Somewhat ironically this happens whilst Trump has another at the London Mayor, so whilst his well backed gun laws allow pretty much any tom dick and harry to buy one, more people are murdered in terrorist acts in the US which Trump seems unconcerned about.

Worth a read https://justice.org.uk/counter-terrorism-human-rights/

Definitely works with AOL as thats what I used.

They are doing this now, they arrest on average one person a day, 5 other attacks have been prevented already this year. Mentioned by many sources we have the toughest laws in the world for preventative terror arrest capability, however something massively draconian has to be in play to stop someone deciding to hire a van, pick up a knife from his kitchen and head off out the door...

Thanks G, the admin guys I am sure will be looking at it, we are down a few people at the moment so bear with us. PM me the email address and will pass on to the guys to see if there is anything amiss.

Sorry that was directed at G in terms of the hotmail issue...

Isn't there something like 4000 people known to police, of which 5 this year have done something. So the solution is to arrest the other 3995 people because they are on a watch list? There are plenty of people out there that are known to police who are likely to rob people, mug people, assault people and so on and so forth probably tens of thousands of them, I assume we apply the same logic there also? There are plenty of people on this forum who I would say based on previous posts are very likely to be out on the roads doing 100mph and speeding regularly, I presume the police should revoke their licences immediately and ban them from owning a car under the same principle. The problem here is that the logic is back to front, of course someone committing these vile acts is very likely to be 'known' to the police its unlikely your auntie Doris is going to wander into central London with a rucksack loaded with gunpowder. So given that tens of thousands of people in the UK are known to the police, what is the legal measure that is taken to solve the problem?

When you say you got no joy, at what part of the sign up process did it fail?

We moved house from France to the UK and managed to get rid of all the boxes in two trips in the Focus, my OCD makes for good use of utilising space when packing a car

Fathers day on the 18th so will most likely be busy sorry mate.

Actually racial profiling is probably the wrong term, I think our targeting has to be more precise than blanket arrests of groups of people based on a couple of variables. The anti-west feeling generated by that sort of behaviour in the long term will generate more terrorists and more deaths than those saved, just a speculative view.

The best way to weed out the potential terrorists is to allow the communities that house them to push them to the authorities, racial profiling will not do that and is more likely to create more anti-west feeling and association with the IS way of thinking?

Yes that 8 minutes was quite frankly amazing, imagine what damage would have been done if the response time was 15 minutes. At the moment the police arrest one person a day linked with terrorism but how many are actually locked up per year, you can count on one hand as you cannot lock someone up for years because they went to the middle east. Can you imagine you go on holiday to Dubai and the second you are off the plane slung into prison with your family for 5 years because you wrote something deemed anti-Islamic on a car forum and support a particular ideology? Would that seem a reasonable and appropriate response? I think anything massively heavy handed will simply turn the Islamic community against the government, it will be seen as a huge racial profiling exercise and anti-Islamic, exactly the message IS want portrayed.

I understand the anger, and having traveled into London to work today as normal am as close to it as most (the Westminster attack was 400 yards from where I work). But I really cannot disagree any more with that Willsy. There was this exact thing in the US called Guantanamo Bay and many people are there for years before they are released as shown to be innocent. Look at how many people were arrested post Manchester and Westminster and subsequently released as they had nothing to do with it. Heavy handed 'rounding up' has been seen in the past in Nazi Germany and later in places like Rwanda and former Yugoslavia - you talk about saving innocent victims, what about the innocent victims you round up and deport or imprison. What about if it was you, would you agree its fine for you to be slung in a prison for years on end unjustly to save innocent lives?

Its a bit of a bizarre question, as no country would launch one nuke (as the response would likely be to have your whole country nuked almost immediately whilst your one nuke wipes out a city). In terms of the shooting down, I am sure I read that the event happens in upper atmosphere and the warhead would not be detonated as interceptor missiles use kinetic energy ie they explode in front of the nuke and the fragments smash into the nuke breaking it up.