PaulC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Brumstopdogs said: Can't we just talk to them like Neville Chamberlain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, KAZZAM said: He has clearly said in the past he is against police shooting to kill and now has had made a clear u-turn on that statement. No he hasn't. Again, on last night he's said the police should "use whatever force is necessary to save lives". How is that a clear u-turn on being against shoot-to-kill in general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: I tell you what's amazing, how much Corbyn and labour are getting slagged off regarding money. "Where's the money coming from?" and the "magical money tree" narrative. When it's Labour who have actually bothered to cost their manifesto. I mean, they literally have it in writing where the money is coming from. I'm not saying it's perfect, there may well be flaws in their costing. But at least they've shown their working. Yes well its whether you believe the costing or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: I tell you what's amazing, how much Corbyn and labour are getting slagged off regarding money. "Where's the money coming from?" and the "magical money tree" narrative. When it's Labour who have actually bothered to cost their manifesto. I mean, they literally have it in writing where the money is coming from. I'm not saying it's perfect, there may well be flaws in their costing. But at least they've shown their working. For real. It's staggering how vast swathes of the country just believe statements with zero depth. "Strong and stable", "Labour's costings don't add up" *nod* *nod* *vote Tory*. Bizarre. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAZZAM Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: No he hasn't. Again, on last night he's said the police should "use whatever force is necessary to save lives". How is that a clear u-turn on being against shoot-to-kill in general? 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: No he hasn't. Again, on last night he's said the police should "use whatever force is necessary to save lives". How is that a clear u-turn on being against shoot-to-kill in general? Whats 'whatever force is neccessary to save lives' then? a nuke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Stevo985 Posted June 4, 2017 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted June 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, PaulC said: Yes well its whether you believe the costing or not. "Where's the money coming from?" "Here. Everything's written down right there" "Ah, don't believe you" 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 14 minutes ago, PaulC said: I think he is a hypocrite as he's a pacifist who doesn't believe in shoot to kill policy and now he has changed his tune. Not saying May isn't either but hes not the great guy that people make him out to be. 2 minutes ago, KAZZAM said: He has clearly said in the past he is against police shooting to kill and now has had made a clear u-turn on that statement. Help me out here guys - do we currently have a shoot to kill policy? Just remember who has been in charge of keeping us safe for the last 7 years. Home Secretary for over 6 years. PM for nearly 12 months. She has been responsible since May 2010. Surely that's long enough a probation period to work out she's a dud? To be fair, she will give parliamentary time over to fox hunting. So you can't fault her priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, KAZZAM said: Whats 'whatever force is neccessary to save lives' then? a nuke? Since a nuke would have completely the opposite effect, one would assume no? 3 terrorists running around stabbing people? Shooting is probably appropriate force - if they happen to die, they die. A lone person with mental health issues threatening people with a knife but not actually harming anyone? Probably not appropriate to shoot-to-kill even if armed response is deemed applicable in case things escalate. See? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, bobzy said: For real. It's staggering how vast swathes of the country just believe statements with zero depth. "Strong and stable", "Labour's costings don't add up" *nod* *nod* *vote Tory*. Bizarre. Even though they're in the minority within the microcosm of this thread, some of the ass-backwards views on display, based on sound bites, misinformation and outright lies, reflect just how **** we are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Help me out here guys - do we currently have a shoot to kill policy? Just remember who has been in charge of keeping us safe for the last 7 years. Home Secretary for over 6 years. PM for nearly 12 months. She has been responsible since May 2010. Surely that's long enough a probation period to work out she's a dud? To be fair, she will give parliamentary time over to fox hunting. So you can't fault her priorities. Do you think Labour would have kept us safer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, PaulC said: Yes well its whether you believe the costing or not. The Tories have literally no idea where the money for their manifesto is coming from. They've answered questions about it with 'economic growth'. They've added a trillion pounds onto the national debt while crippling the country to give corporations tax breaks. And people don't believe Labour's figures. OMFG 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 1 minute ago, PaulC said: Do you think Labour would have kept us safer? Absolutely yes. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 4, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted June 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, PaulC said: Do you think Labour would have kept us safer? You've missed the point. You seem annoyed that Corbyn doesn't want a shoot to kill policy. May has been in charge of that side of things for 6 or 7 years, and we don't currently have a shoot to kill policy. Shouldn't you be angry at her too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, PaulC said: Do you think Labour would have kept us safer? Is that an answer or another question? Do we have a shoot to kill policy in the UK? FWIW, I'll answer your question: I have no idea how the 7 years of May being in charge would have panned out with Labour in power instead, nobody can know. I'm just trying to be a little bit cautious about giving the same tired failed person even more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, darrenm said: The Tories have literally no idea where the money for their manifesto is coming from. They've answered questions about it with 'economic growth'. They've added a trillion pounds onto the national debt while crippling the country to give corporations tax breaks. And people don't believe Labour's figures. OMFG I Know Darren but I have zero confidence in Labour to cut the deficit. not sure the Keynesian approach to economics is the right one but I also don't think austerity is either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, Stevo985 said: You've missed the point. You seem annoyed that Corbyn doesn't want a shoot to kill policy. May has been in charge of that side of things for 6 or 7 years, and we don't currently have a shoot to kill policy. Shouldn't you be angry at her too? Not angry I just think he is a hypocrite and I think May is too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, PaulC said: I Know Darren but I have zero confidence in Labour to cut the deficit. not sure the Keynesian approach to economics is the right one but I also don't think austerity is either. Will it be any worse than £120b a year added to the national debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Just now, darrenm said: Will it be any worse than £120b a year added to the national debt? who knows. I am not against Labour btw as I have been a Labour voter all my life. but I'm not sure anymore which is the right way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 Not a huge fan of Corbyn and there's plenty to criticise him about, but his remarks on 'shoot to kill' were not reported completely accurately (and this was found to be the case by the BBC's regulator). Watching the full clip, he was not directly asked about it in the context of terrorist attacks, although the edited video and article tried to make this out. The actual question was “If you were Prime Minister, would you be happy to order people, police or military, to shoot to kill on Britain’s streets?” In response he said he's not a fan of shoot to kill in general, that it can be dangerous, that it can be counter productive and he'd rather work to prevent those situations arising in the first place. Basically its a last resort strategy that he'd rather not use if it can be helped. I'm not sure there is much wrong with that. And given as others have said there is no shoot to kill policy at the moment, and armed officer are used only in the most extreme circumstances, it seems the current government have a similar view. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 4, 2017 Share Posted June 4, 2017 My final(ish - might update if anything crazy happens over the next few days) predictions for which seats will change hands: Thoughts? Omissions? Disagreements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts