Europe post the Paris attacks
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Fullofsurprises
The UK's response to IS is looking increasingly like a pathetic and second-rate version of what it should be. It's clear that Osborne's agenda of cuts to vital services like the police and the armed forces matters more overall to the Tories than security. Cameron's increases in security service personnel the other day were laughable against a backdrop of 30/40% cuts to the Metropolitan Police budget, which in reality is going to mean many fewer police on the streets.
Actually I think if London faced a similar mass attack like the one in Paris, we might not cope with it nearly as well as the French have. The SAS is another force that has been cut a lot. We are basically incapable of helping our close allies in Syria because we simply do not have the armed forces left, although of course there is still ample money to spend on the nonsense of Trident.
Actually I think if London faced a similar mass attack like the one in Paris, we might not cope with it nearly as well as the French have. The SAS is another force that has been cut a lot. We are basically incapable of helping our close allies in Syria because we simply do not have the armed forces left, although of course there is still ample money to spend on the nonsense of Trident.
Great post. repped you.
I posted this on another thread but a famous user called it an 'irrelevant rant'. I wonder if you feel the same way?
I have a mind of my own because I read extensively but a lot of it has to do with common sense. Nothing I say is recited or lifted off directly from other forms of internet medium. If you see my previous posts I have said all along that displaying France's flag on FB or Twitter, sending messages of solidarity or condolences to the families of the victims, carrying out all day and night candle vigils or having peaceful or violent demonstrations on the streets is not going to rectify the situation one single bit.
I will only speak about what UK should do because I only care about her.
1.
Pull out of the EU
2.
Take control of her borders so that only she decides who to allow or disallow entry
3.
Economic migrants, refugees and asylum seekers must go through thorough scrutiny of their application i.e. grounds for wanting to move to UK, screening of prior criminal convictions and links to terror cell groups and whether they carry life threatening diseases such as HIV.
4.
People who want to move to UK for work must have a skill to bring and genuine qualifications. They too must be screened for the things stated in bold above. Failure of any will result in the rejection of their application. Those who pass the stringent tests will be given work permits.
5.
Once she has control of the borders, the Home Minister, preferably someone more competent than Theresa May, must lead and supervise coordinated raids of one borough to another with the help of the police, anti-terrorism unit and UK Border agency. These agencies must work together to check, identify, detain, investigate further and then charge those who have links to terror groups, who have arrest warrants out for them either nationally or from other countries or who have committed heinous crimes such as sexual grooming, human trafficking, drug syndicates etc. Those who do not have valid papers or who are working illegally must be deported to their home country immediately.
6.
Conduct raids in prisons and certain mosques because it is indeed the breeding and recruitment ground for extremists and radicals. Just like in every religion there are bound to be good and bad people. Identify the rotten apples along with hate preachers, charge them, detain them indefinitely and those without valid immigration papers must be deported immediately.
When you have good governance, the country becomes prosperous for business & financial trading activity and also investment from overseas which creates real jobs (not shelf stacking as previous advocated Ian Duncan Smith), the streets are safer for us and we can move forward as a nation towards a better tomorrow for our future generations.
If you think that whatever I've said so far is merely a fallacy and no such country has such framework policies in place, please kindly read up on Japan, South Korea and Singapore.
Original post by abruiseonthesky
He clarified on his facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153770561313872&id=330250343871
It's a proposed policy, though...
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153770561313872&id=330250343871
It's a proposed policy, though...
Also, shooting to kill is not a government policy; it's the law of self-defence, and is very much established by case law and legislation.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Excuse me!? 
Spoiler
See you direct me to the wiki on the Battle of Britain I will direct you to eg. the Warsaw Uprising
. I understand the British schools shield their children from history classes but I would highly encourage you to go and read more unbiased sources as well 
The fact remains British were not interested in providing much help until the tiger almost bit them in their backside 
Original post by Howard
Shut your pie hole. I'm married to a Pole, 8 out ten of my personal friends are Poles, and I spend a lot of time in Poland with the Polish half of my family.
I'm just joking. Where's your sense of humour? Bore off.
I'm just joking. Where's your sense of humour? Bore off.
Then you should know better than to talk in the manner you did
Unless you got no respect for your relatives which is another matter.I could not care less if you spend time in Poland it is not an excuse. The fact remains what you said is neither a "joke" to make, nor is it funny.
Nine out of ten of my best friends are Polish and I am ten out of ten Polish if you like numbers so much. I like to think I know what I am talking about
Spoiler
Original post by Invicta16
I thank you for taking care of my education with a wiki page oh wise one
See you direct me to the wiki on the Battle of Britain I will direct you to eg. the Warsaw Uprising. I understand the British schools shield their children from history classes but I would highly encourage you to go and read more unbiased sources as well The fact remains British were not interested in providing much help until the tiger almost bit them in their backside
Then you should know better than to talk in the manner you did Unless you got no respect for your relatives which is another matter.
I could not care less if you spend time in Poland it is not an excuse. The fact remains what you said is neither a "joke" to make, nor is it funny.
Nine out of ten of my best friends are Polish and I am ten out of ten Polish if you like numbers so much. I like to think I know what I am talking about
See you direct me to the wiki on the Battle of Britain I will direct you to eg. the Warsaw Uprising
. I understand the British schools shield their children from history classes but I would highly encourage you to go and read more unbiased sources as well The fact remains British were not interested in providing much help until the tiger almost bit them in their backside Then you should know better than to talk in the manner you did
Unless you got no respect for your relatives which is another matter.I could not care less if you spend time in Poland it is not an excuse. The fact remains what you said is neither a "joke" to make, nor is it funny.
Nine out of ten of my best friends are Polish and I am ten out of ten Polish if you like numbers so much. I like to think I know what I am talking about
Spoiler
I don't care if nine out of ten cat owners say their cats prefer Whiskas. Now piss off.
Original post by Howard
I don't care if nine out of ten cat owners say their cats prefer Whiskas. Now piss off.
It's kind of funny you say that as you seemed a bit preoccupied with numbers a few minutes ago
Original post by Invicta16
It's kind of funny you say that as you seemed a bit preoccupied with numbers a few minutes ago
Are you a gay?
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
Posting a clarification on Facebook is seen more as him backtracking his statements, rather than actually making such a statement in the first place when confronted by the question during the BBC interview.
Also, shooting to kill is not a government policy; it's the law of self-defence, and is very much established by case law and legislation.
Also, shooting to kill is not a government policy; it's the law of self-defence, and is very much established by case law and legislation.
A statement that was then widely taken out of context.
I know - but it has been proposed.
Original post by abruiseonthesky
A statement that was then widely taken out of context.
I know - but it has been proposed.
I know - but it has been proposed.
Original post by Howard
Are you a gay?
Out of arguments I see?
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
Politics and the public's attention is a fickle thing, and Jeremy Corbyn is the only one to blame for not making himself clear the first time.
I would argue that the misrepresentation rife in our media doesn't really help. Surely you can't say there is none?
Anyway, back to the original point - he didn't say that
Original post by Invicta16
Out of arguments I see?
Nothing to argue about. You've had a sense of humour bypass operation; happily I still have mine.
Original post by abruiseonthesky
I would argue that the misrepresentation rife in our media doesn't really help. Surely you can't say there is none?
Anyway, back to the original point - he didn't say that
Anyway, back to the original point - he didn't say that
In the absence of a positive statement on his support of such a "policy," and considering his other comments as well as his pacifist stance/ideology, the next logical step would be to construe his statement as meaning that he does not support such a "policy," which was what the media and public did; what the media said was not a misrepresentation as there was nothing contradictory between what Corbyn said and what the media stated.
As for whether Corbyn said or did not say it, there are of course such things as reading in between the lines; saying something like "I am not happy with [xxx]" could just be a very polite English way of saying "I do not support [xxx]". But whether he said it or not does not matter much - he just didn't say it when he was supposed to have said so.
Original post by Howard
Nothing to argue about. You've had a sense of humour bypass operation; happily I still have mine.
Try your "sense of humour" talking about Polish like that on your next visit in Poland and let me know how you get on
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
I believe what the media did was actually speculation and analysis, rather than misrepresentation. A misrepresentation would require an intention to represent a statement in a false manner. However in this case Jeremy Corbyn had made no original statement of supporting the right to shoot to kill in necessary situations in the first place. Instead, he made comments during the interview was that he was 'unhappy' with such a "policy."
In the absence of a positive statement on his support of such a "policy," and considering his other comments as well as his pacifist stance/ideology, the next logical step would be to construe his statement as meaning that he does not support such a "policy," which was what the media and public did; what the media said was not a misrepresentation as there was nothing contradictory between what Corbyn said and what the media stated.
As for whether Corbyn said or did not say it, there are of course such things as reading in between the lines; saying something like "I am not happy with [xxx]" could just be a very polite English way of saying "I do not support [xxx]". But whether he said it or not does not matter much - he just didn't say it when he was supposed to have said so.
In the absence of a positive statement on his support of such a "policy," and considering his other comments as well as his pacifist stance/ideology, the next logical step would be to construe his statement as meaning that he does not support such a "policy," which was what the media and public did; what the media said was not a misrepresentation as there was nothing contradictory between what Corbyn said and what the media stated.
As for whether Corbyn said or did not say it, there are of course such things as reading in between the lines; saying something like "I am not happy with [xxx]" could just be a very polite English way of saying "I do not support [xxx]". But whether he said it or not does not matter much - he just didn't say it when he was supposed to have said so.
I meant generally in the media
It's still a bit of a leap to go from someone saying they're unhappy with it to then state that they're completely against it. Fair enough, JC should've been clearer. But sensationalism lead to the wrong conclusion.
Foo.mp3
Fact is, he said he’s not happy about it, which was an evasive answer and either undermining or else superfluous (no-one is “happy” with a shoot to kill policy)
He said it's a dangerous policy, e.g. the case of the Brazilian (I think) man shot in London on his way to work, 'But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.'
Fair, he should've been clearer with his initial statement. But less sensationalism wouldn't have propagated the incorrect conclusion the media drew.
I think the EU as it stands is finished. An increase in terrorism across Europe is going to ensure we vote yes to leave in 2017 and more countries are going to realise that the only way to control their borders and who enters/leaves their country is to pull out of the EU. Well that's the worst case scenario. The best case is that schengen is abolished and EU countries regain control of their own immigration and legal systems without having to leave the EU.
In regards to terrorism in the UK, we are much less equipped to deal with an attack like that in Paris. In France all police carry guns, but here only a small percentage of police are armed. An unarmed member of the police simply cannot take on a terrorist with an automatic weapon. Moving armed police into London is probably quick but my worry is if an attack happened in a regional city where it could take time to get an armed response unit there.
There's never been a better case to arm all police officers than the current threat of terrorism. Police officers who don't wish to be armed should be replaced, national security is more important than personal views on that. It wouldn't be like in the US where the police shoot for every little thing. The weapons should only be drawn against a criminal whom they believe has a gun or in life threatening situations, which in this country is a very small fraction of crime.
In regards to terrorism in the UK, we are much less equipped to deal with an attack like that in Paris. In France all police carry guns, but here only a small percentage of police are armed. An unarmed member of the police simply cannot take on a terrorist with an automatic weapon. Moving armed police into London is probably quick but my worry is if an attack happened in a regional city where it could take time to get an armed response unit there.
There's never been a better case to arm all police officers than the current threat of terrorism. Police officers who don't wish to be armed should be replaced, national security is more important than personal views on that. It wouldn't be like in the US where the police shoot for every little thing. The weapons should only be drawn against a criminal whom they believe has a gun or in life threatening situations, which in this country is a very small fraction of crime.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Certainly would help, but that’s just one of many factors, if we are truly honest with ourselves.. (as above)
Certainly would help, but that’s just one of many factors, if we are truly honest with ourselves.. (as above)
You agree it should be solved but you give a ton of arguments that go against actually tackling islamophobia?
Original post by the bear
We are immeasurably better off with the Conservatives at this parlous moment. If our security was left to Corbyn's Circus we would be well and truly ****ed.
ISIS wasn't created under his watch.
ISIS was created a decade ago by combined factors, one of which was aggressive foreign policy in the middle east. One is left wondering who we will have created in another decade?
The problem we're staring at now is the one that could have been solved 12 years ago.
We should be vigilant at border control of course, but the fundamental problem is that the countries in the middle eastern areas are getting more and more inflamed.
You cannot solve inflammation with bombing runs.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Raiden10
ISIS wasn't created under his watch.
ISIS was created a decade ago by combined factors, one of which was aggressive foreign policy in the middle east. One is left wondering who we will have created in another decade?
The problem we're staring at now is the one that could have been solved 12 years ago.
We should be vigilant at border control of course, but the fundamental problem is that the countries in the middle eastern areas are getting more and more inflamed.
You cannot solve inflammation with bombing runs.
ISIS was created a decade ago by combined factors, one of which was aggressive foreign policy in the middle east. One is left wondering who we will have created in another decade?
The problem we're staring at now is the one that could have been solved 12 years ago.
We should be vigilant at border control of course, but the fundamental problem is that the countries in the middle eastern areas are getting more and more inflamed.
You cannot solve inflammation with bombing runs.
and why would Mr Corbyn be the man to quench the flames of Daesh ?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Best city in England for non religious and single guy?
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- (HOTELS/HOSTEL SUGGESTIONS)16 year olds in Paris
- Help! Deciding between Sciences Po and College of Europe + Fletcher School
- creating a bank account in Paris
- HEC MSc in Marketing vs LSE GMiM - confused which to choose
- HEC MSc in Marketing vs. LSE GMiM - confused which to choose
- Someone want to travel with me?
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- fashion design schools in europe?
- Rugby World Cup 2023 official discussion thread
- Apart from your home country, what country have you spent the most time in?
- Prague in state of shock following mass shooting at Charles University.
- Oxford MPhil Politics (European Politics and Society)
- How many countries have you been to?
- AQA A-level English Literature & Language Paper 1 (7707/1) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Gap Year Activities
- Eligibility to UK Law Courses
- What are your plans for travel this summer?
- Where can I look for a good holiday that is not way too expensive?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
