I see the "Scottish Police numbers" Tweet FPT has been deleted.
Just as well.
The "depleted" Met police neutralised 3 dangerous suspects in 8 minutes.
The "expanded" Police Scotland left someone to die at the side of the road for 3 days.
Until those numbers are reversed, a period of silence from the Zoomers on what a brilliant job Nicola is doing would be welcome.
A classic case of prioritizing "inputs" over "outcomes"! I did think it very "brave" to champion the record of Police Scotland....meanwhile we learn the two year service BTPoliceman went at them armed only with a baton - undoubtedly saving civilian lives
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Mr. Isam, Christians and Muslims worship the same god.
Mr. W, you tinker.
Mr. Malmesbury, nah, he's just a Wibbling Muddle-headed Dipstick.
Yes, but the guy who spread the word for Christianity could not have been more different to the guy who spread the word for Islam.
While Muslims claim to worship the same God, and have distorted Jewish and Christian teachings to do so, they do not.
The differences between the New Testament and Kaoran are huge, particularly in relation to violence, and forming a state. Indeed Christianity had been around for several hundred years before Christians decided that war could sometimes be justified, and before it became state religion anywhere (Armenia beat Rome to it). Islam was born in violent conflict and as a conquering state from the beginning.
Wow, I didn't expect to be on the same side as you on this but yes you are correct. While Muslims claim their god is the same abrahamic god, apart from modern wishy-washy apologists, that hasn't exactly been the historical view of Christian or Jewish authorities.
Obviously the Islamic tradition has been clear since day one that it's the same God. But really, who else gives a damn about these inter-religious arguments about which of these supernatural entities are identical and which are different?
Kind of matters a lot given what is going on in the world right now.
"The unnamed woman said: 'Stay with me, please, I love you. Don't let those f****** get away with it. Come on, please', as a paramedic and police office gave him CPR on London Bridge. "
"One woman's throat was slit while she was eating a meal in a restaurant "
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
Being a friend of Hamas is good.
Jeremy Corbyn does not oppose shooting to kill where it's necessary to save innocent lives, as it clearly was last night. No sensible person does.
Having a register of "extremists" and tagging everyone on it won't work. If they tagged everybody, that would be different. Perhaps they could make it an offence not to carry a switched on mobile phone? Or, more effective, not to wear a tag. Or, even more effective, not to be implanted with a microchip that communicates through one's phone or through the nearest few transceivers in a network of transceivers...placed in every room, vehicle, etc., and why not in every article of clothing, packet of washing-powder, etc. too?
Then a left-wing government will come to power and listen to all the rich people's discussions of tax-dodging with their family members and accountants! Imagine that! And Britain has no constitution requiring that laws mustn't be retrospective.
If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
3 terrorists were shot dead by police yesterday, I hesitate to think whether the same would happen under a Corbyn premiership, Corbyn is on record as saying 'it was a tragedy Bin Laden was killed rather than put on trial' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34106214
FPT Re UK Sikhs not being as violent as UK Muslims...
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
Humans are primates, and in primate communities there has to be an alpha male. In the UK/Europe the alpha male was Christianity. As long as other religions were too small in number to mount an attack everything was ok. Now one is growing and beginning to want power, trouble is inevitable
"In understanding this matter, the beginning of wisdom is to grasp the law that in human societies power is never left unclaimed and unused. It does not blow about, like wastepaper on the streets, ownerless and inert. Men’s nature is not only, as Thucydides long ago asserted, to exert power where they have it; men cannot help themselves from exerting power where they have it, whether they want to or not. "
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
I've not suggested that the 20,000 cut should be re-instated like for like, more that the 20,000 resource might have been deployed more fruitfully. In addition to which there surely cannot be any doubt that such reductions have an escalating pressure on other parts of the service.
One would also hope that we have learnt the lessons of the past in terms of the operational effectiveness of community policing. As you indicate it is not an easy challenge but it is a challenge that must be faced. The present situation is not a viable option. The jigsaw of pieces that the state has at its disposal must function at fullest effectiveness. The disposal of 20,000 officers should never have been a lost piece of that jigsaw.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, !
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet,
Being a friend of Hamas is good.
Jeremy Corbyn does not oppose shooting to kill where it's necessary to save innocent lives, as it clearly was last night. No sensible person does.
Having a register of "extremists" and tagging everyone on it won't work. If they tagged everybody, that would be different. Perhaps they could make it an offence not to carry a switched on mobile phone? Or, more effective, not to wear a tag. Or, even more effective, not to be implanted with a microchip that communicates through one's phone or through the nearest few transceivers in a network of transceivers...placed in every room, vehicle, etc., and why not in every article of clothing, packet of washing-powder, etc. too?
Then a left-wing government will come to power and listen to all the rich people's discussions of tax-dodging with their family members and accountants! Imagine that! And Britain has no constitution requiring that laws mustn't be retrospective.
If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
Corbyn opposed the killing of Bin Laden, a man who organised the murder of 3,000 people, he would be the weakest PM on national security in my lifetime and probably my parent's lifetime at a time we need tough action from the top. The fact you say being a 'friend' or terrorists is good says all you need to know about what a disaster for our country a Corbyn premiership would be
There are 23,000 extremists in this country the security services know who most of them are, tag them, intern them but do not leave them to wander free any more. As for rich people, before Corbyn takes office half of them will already have fled to Geneva and Monaco, the Bahamas and Singapore leaving the rest of us to pick up most of the tab for his Christmas list!
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
3 terrorists were shot dead by police yesterday, I hesitate to think whether the same would happen under a Corbyn premiership, Corbyn is on record as saying 'it was a tragedy Bin Laden was killed rather than put on trial' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34106214
What do you think would have happened? I'm pretty sure that the police would have arrested last night's attackers rather than shooting them had it been safe to do so. That's what they are trained to do.
Nope. He has an incredible life-story. He was a smack addict like me. He's also a TV presenter now.
I don't know why Iran's even being brought into this. They're not the bad kind. The bad kind are the Sunni Wahhabists and Salafists, who are sworn enemies of the Shia Iran. Hezbollah aren't the bad kind either. The bad kind come from and are funded by the gulf monarchies, who are our geopolitical buddies. The bad kind are also the militant jihadists who *we* aid in Syria against the forces of a secular dictatorship which used to guarantee freedom of worship. Every day in Syria these same jihadists, funded and aided by us, do the same things we've seen in London and Manchester. These are the uncomfortable truths we must face.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
It's a police operational matter. Do you really think either May or Rudd were calling the shots within those eight minutes?
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
Are you saying that the police opened fire last night on the orders of a politician?
I've not suggested that the 20,000 cut should be re-instated like for like, more that the 20,000 resource might have been deployed more fruitfully. In addition to which there surely cannot be any doubt that such reductions have an escalating pressure on other parts of the service.
One would also hope that we have learnt the lessons of the past in terms of the operational effectiveness of community policing. As you indicate it is not an easy challenge but it is a challenge that must be faced. The present situation is not a viable option. The jigsaw of pieces that the state has at its disposal must function at fullest effectiveness. The disposal of 20,000 officers should never have been a lost piece of that jigsaw.
How many of that 20,000 were desk officers and other non-frontline staff that became surplus to requirement when forces merged and/or agreed to share facilities.
The fact remains all sorts of things could be done better, and almost all of those involves spending considerable sums of money, considerable sums that the public are singularly unwilling to pay for. The LDs suggested 1% for the NHS, a perfectly respectable and sensible policy, and are about to disappear from the electoral face of the earth!
The British public want the public services of Sweden, but the tax bill of Belize, and any politician that tries to disabuse them of their folly usually pays the price, see Phil Hammond and National Insurance recently.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
3 terrorists were shot dead by police yesterday, I hesitate to think whether the same would happen under a Corbyn premiership, Corbyn is on record as saying 'it was a tragedy Bin Laden was killed rather than put on trial' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34106214
What do you think would have happened? I'm pretty sure that the police would have arrested last night's attackers rather than shooting them had it been safe to do so. That's what they are trained to do.
Indeed but clearly last night it was not safe to do so and so they had no choice but to shoot them. Had Corbyn and Abbott been PM and Home Secretary any 'shoot to kill' action may well have been banned by the government hence making last night's atrocity even worse with far greater loss of life
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
And yet every time something is suggested to try and bridge the divide - making people learn English, stamping out unacceptable religious practices or making people abide by British laws with no exceptions - and deal with extremism, people like you shout 'RACISM'.
If you want to look for one of the root causes of this problem look to yourself Roger.
It's pretty universal on the left to support language-teaching provision for non-English speaking immigrant communities, including opposing funding cuts in recent years. I'm struggling to think of parts of criminal law that are not universally applicable,
What concrete steps to deal with extremism do you feel the government failed to take because of people shouting "racism" rather than for reasons of maintaining civil liberties that we value as a society, or because they were incompatible with cutting spending? I'm not clear what May means to do as a result of claiming "enough is enough".
I am not talking about supporting language teaching I am talking about enforcing it.
If someone wants to settle in Norway and take up residency they have to take 300 hours of compulsory Norwegian Language, culture and history lessons. They are not allowed to have permanent residency until they have completed this. Norway - contrary to what the lunatic Brevik claimed - is one of the most integrated countries in the world in spite of having much higher per capita immigration levels than the UK. It doesn't matter where you came from, religion or any other dividers, the aim is to make you Norwegian in the ways that matter so you feel part of the community.
And it works. We could start with that as a basic guide to how to try and start to address these problems. It won't solve anywhere near everything but it will at least stop things getting worse.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
I'm only guessing here, but I'm pretty sure the officers last night were operating autonomously under standard procedures, rather than managing to get the PM or Home Sec on the phone for specific instructions as they dealt with the situation. A "shoot to kill" policy is understood to be one where lethal force is deployed despite being unnecessary for immediate public safety, which is the policy Corbyn opposes and which is also not government policy.
Mr. Isam, Christians and Muslims worship the same god.
Mr. W, you tinker.
Mr. Malmesbury, nah, he's just a Wibbling Muddle-headed Dipstick.
Yes, but the guy who spread the word for Christianity could not have been more different to the guy who spread the word for Islam.
While Muslims claim to worship the same God, and have distorted Jewish and Christian teachings to do so, they do not.
The differences between the New Testament and Kaoran are huge, particularly in relation to violence, and forming a state. Indeed Christianity had been around for several hundred years before Christians decided that war could sometimes be justified, and before it became state religion anywhere (Armenia beat Rome to it). Islam was born in violent conflict and as a conquering state from the beginning.
Of course it is the same God, bit of a theological stretch that one I'm afraid. Which part of Jesus/Isa, Mary, Abraham or the Angel Gabriel isn't in the Qu'ran or bible ?
Lots!
Mohammad was familiar with Jewish and Christian stories, so incorporated them in part and in distorted form within his own teachings. He obviously claimed for the teachings to be different as he claimed to have the final and perfect revelation, and that all previous revalations had been corrupted.
That is not to deny that there are similarities, indeed much cross fertilisation between Islam, Jewish, Catholic and Orthodox theology. Karen Armstrong discusses the evolution of theology in these religions very well in 'A History of God". I dont think she properly discusses or understands Protestant Theology, at least in this work.
I am a Univeralist and do not believe that God is only accessible to professing Christians, but in this I am in agreement with Jesus, who explicitly commended the faith of a number of Samaritans, and even a Roman Centurion (who would be pagan). There are a number of strands of Islam that I like (particularly the Sufi teachings, but also the Shia emphasis on penance and social action), but I see Salafism as a wholly and unholy perversion.
Mr. Isam, Christians and Muslims worship the same god.
Mr. W, you tinker.
Mr. Malmesbury, nah, he's just a Wibbling Muddle-headed Dipstick.
Yes, but the guy who spread the word for Christianity could not have been more different to the guy who spread the word for Islam.
While Muslims claim to worship the same God, and have distorted Jewish and Christian teachings to do so, they do not.
The differences between the New Testament and Kaoran are huge, particularly in relation to violence, and forming a state. Indeed Christianity had been around for several hundred years before Christians decided that war could sometimes be justified, and before it became state religion anywhere (Armenia beat Rome to it). Islam was born in violent conflict and as a conquering state from the beginning.
Wow, I didn't expect to be on the same side as you on this but yes you are correct. While Muslims claim their god is the same abrahamic god, apart from modern wishy-washy apologists, that hasn't exactly been the historical view of Christian or Jewish authorities.
Obviously the Islamic tradition has been clear since day one that it's the same God. But really, who else gives a damn about these inter-religious arguments about which of these supernatural entities are identical and which are different?
Kind of matters a lot given what is going on in the world right now.
Unless you're a believer, I don't even know what sense the question makes. And if you are a believer of any of those varieties, then of course you're going to claim that the other kinds of believers are infidels.
No doubt it's the kind of intellectual exercise that appealed to people in medieval times, and still appeals today to people with that kind of bent. But as far as public policy is concerned, we just have to let people believe what they like within the law, and when they don't stay within the law deal with them without prejudice.
Nope. He has an incredible life-story. He was a smack addict like me. He's also a TV presenter now.
I don't know why Iran's even being brought into this. They're not the bad kind. The bad kind are the Sunni Wahhabists and Salafists, who are sworn enemies of the Shia Iran. Hezbollah aren't the bad kind either. The bad kind come from and are funded by the gulf monarchies, who are our geopolitical buddies. The bad kind are also the militant jihadists who *we* aid in Syria against the forces of a secular dictatorship which used to guarantee freedom of worship. Every day in Syria these same jihadists, funded and aided by us, do the same things we've seen in London and Manchester. These are the uncomfortable truths we must face.
Hezbollah killed 85 people with a car bomb in Argentina (among many other japes). Is that really being not the bad kind?
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
It's a police operational matter. Do you really think either May or Rudd were calling the shots within those eight minutes?
Both have authorised a 'shoot to kill' policy if needed, Corbyn is on record as opposing such a policy outright
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
And yet every time something is suggested to try and bridge the divide - making people learn English, stamping out unacceptable religious practices or making people abide by British laws with no exceptions - and deal with extremism, people like you shout 'RACISM'.
If you want to look for one of the root causes of this problem look to yourself Roger.
It's pretty universal on the left to support language-teaching provision for non-English speaking immigrant communities, including opposing funding cuts in recent years. I'm struggling to think of parts of criminal law that are not universally applicable,
What concrete steps to deal with extremism do you feel the government failed to take because of people shouting "racism" rather than for reasons of maintaining civil liberties that we value as a society, or because they were incompatible with cutting spending? I'm not clear what May means to do as a result of claiming "enough is enough".
I am not talking about supporting language teaching I am talking about enforcing it.
If someone wants to settle in Norway and take up residency they have to take 300 hours of compulsory Norwegian Language, culture and history lessons. They are not allowed to have permanent residency until they have completed this. Norway - contrary to what the lunatic Brevik claimed - is one of the most integrated countries in the world in spite of having much higher per capita immigration levels than the UK. It doesn't matter where you came from, religion or any other dividers, the aim is to make you Norwegian in the ways that matter so you feel part of the community.
And it works. We could start with that as a basic guide to how to try and start to address these problems. It won't solve anywhere near everything but it will at least stop things getting worse.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
Are you saying that the police opened fire last night on the orders of a politician?
In a sense of ensuring the rules are there for them to use lethal force against terrorists, not actively being in the phone.
Mr. Isam, Christians and Muslims worship the same god.
Mr. W, you tinker.
Mr. Malmesbury, nah, he's just a Wibbling Muddle-headed Dipstick.
Yes, but the guy who spread the word for Christianity could not have been more different to the guy who spread the word for Islam.
While Muslims claim to worship the same God, and have distorted Jewish and Christian teachings to do so, they do not.
The differences between the New Testament and Kaoran are huge, particularly in relation to violence, and forming a state. Indeed Christianity had been around for several hundred years before Christians decided that war could sometimes be justified, and before it became state religion anywhere (Armenia beat Rome to it). Islam was born in violent conflict and as a conquering state from the beginning.
Of course it is the same God, bit of a theological stretch that one I'm afraid. Which part of Jesus/Isa, Mary, Abraham or the Angel Gabriel isn't in the Qu'ran or bible ?
Lots!
Mohammad was familiar with Jewish and Christian stories, so incorporated them in part and in distorted form within his own teachings. He obviously claimed for the teachings to be different as he claimed to have the final and perfect revelation, and that all previous revalations had been corrupted.
That is not to deny that there are similarities, indeed much cross fertilisation between Islam, Jewish, Catholic and Orthodox theology. Karen Armstrong discusses the evolution of theology in these religions very well in 'A History of God". I dont think she properly discusses or understands Protestant Theology, at least in this work.
I am a Univeralist and do not believe that God is only accessible to professing Christians, but in this I am in agreement with Jesus, who explicitly commended the faith of a number of Samaritans, and even a Roman Centurion (who would be pagan).
FPT Re UK Sikhs not being as violent as UK Muslims...
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
Humans are primates, and in primate communities there has to be an alpha male. In the UK/Europe the alpha male was Christianity. As long as other religions were too small in number to mount an attack everything was ok. Now one is growing and beginning to want power, trouble is inevitable
"In understanding this matter, the beginning of wisdom is to grasp the law that in human societies power is never left unclaimed and unused. It does not blow about, like wastepaper on the streets, ownerless and inert. Men’s nature is not only, as Thucydides long ago asserted, to exert power where they have it; men cannot help themselves from exerting power where they have it, whether they want to or not. "
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
Well it could be. It wouldn't be Christian in the way these attacks aren't Islamic. The extremists are fleas on a dog, parasites of the religion really.
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
Typical! Turn my back for five minutes and I see Ayrshire's least intelligent turnip farmer favorite son has been smote with the ban hammer. Given what he routinely posts day in day out dare one inquire what, in general terms, earned this?
Jeremy Corbyn today faces open revolt over his refusal to support police shooting dead marauding terrorists, with even his own shadow foreign secretary distancing himself from the Labour leader.
The Labour party is in uproar after Mr Corbyn said he was 'not happy' about armed officers and special forces had an order to kill fanatics to bring an atrocity to an end.
At a stormy meeting of Labour MPs last night senior figures lined up to criticise Mr Corbyn's refusal to support the police and security agencies in their battle to keep Britain safe.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, !
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet,
Being a friend of Hamas is good.
Jeremy Corbyn does not oppose shooting to kill where it's necessary to save innocent lives, as it clearly was last night. No sensible person does.
Having a register of "extremists" and tagging everyone on it won't work. If they tagged everybody, that would be different. Perhaps they could make it an offence not to carry a switched on mobile phone? Or, more effective, not to wear a tag. Or, even more effective, not to be implanted with a microchip that communicates through one's phone or through the nearest few transceivers in a network of transceivers...placed in every room, vehicle, etc., and why not in every article of clothing, packet of washing-powder, etc. too?
Then a left-wing government will come to power and listen to all the rich people's discussions of tax-dodging with their family members and accountants! Imagine that! And Britain has no constitution requiring that laws mustn't be retrospective.
If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
Corbyn opposed the killing of Bin Laden, a man who organised the murder of 3,000 people, he would be the weakest PM on national security in my lifetime and probably my parent's lifetime at a time we need tough action from the top. The fact you say being a 'friend' or terrorists is good says all you need to know about what a disaster for our country a Corbyn premiership would be
There are 23,000 extremists in this country the security services know who most of them are, tag them, intern them but do not leave them to wander free any more. As for rich people, before Corbyn takes office half of them will already have fled to Geneva and Monaco, the Bahamas and Singapore leaving the rest of us to pick up most of the tab for his Christmas list!
Corbyn said that it was a tragedy that Bin Laden was not captured alive and put on trial. I am not sure that that was feasible, but it may well have been a far better demolition of Islamism than merely killing him.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
Are you saying that the police opened fire last night on the orders of a politician?
They open fire on the basis of standing orders - which are ultimately provided by the home secretary.
Nope. He has an incredible life-story. He was a smack addict like me. He's also a TV presenter now.
I don't know why Iran's even being brought into this. They're not the bad kind. The bad kind are the Sunni Wahhabists and Salafists, who are sworn enemies of the Shia Iran. Hezbollah aren't the bad kind either. The bad kind come from and are funded by the gulf monarchies, who are our geopolitical buddies. The bad kind are also the militant jihadists who *we* aid in Syria against the forces of a secular dictatorship which used to guarantee freedom of worship. Every day in Syria these same jihadists, funded and aided by us, do the same things we've seen in London and Manchester. These are the uncomfortable truths we must face.
Hezbollah killed 85 people with a car bomb in Argentina (among many other japes). Is that really being not the bad kind?
As far as we're concerned, yes. We do not have a Hezbollah problem, or an Iran problem, or an Assad problem, nor did we have a Gadaffi problem, or a Saddam problem. \We have a wahhabist problem. Our politicians treat us as utter imbeciles as they continue to go after those who don't endanger us, and end up putting us in greater danger (power vacuum anyone?) in order to follow a pre-ordained geopolitical agenda which has nothing whatever to do with public safety.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move onto a travel ban to Syria and Libya without express permission and also tagging extremists. Corbyn of course has voted against every piece of anti terror legislation introduced, is a friend of Hamas and opposes the shoot to kill policy
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
Are you saying that the police opened fire last night on the orders of a politician?
In a sense of ensuring the rules are there for them to use lethal force against terrorists, not actively being in the phone.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Typical! Turn my back for five minutes and I see Ayrshire's least intelligent turnip farmer favorite son has been smote with the ban hammer. Given what he routinely posts day in day out dare one inquire what, in general terms, earned this?
He got in a rather personal slanging match(*) with @Black_Rook, who is also on the naughty step. Combined, that's a net loss to us BTL, Black_Rook is one of the most insightful new posters of the last year.
(*) Technically, I don't know for sure that's the reason, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.
(...)If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
Corbyn opposed the killing of Bin Laden, a man who organised the murder of 3,000 people, he would be the weakest PM on national security in my lifetime and probably my parent's lifetime at a time we need tough action from the top. The fact you say being a 'friend' or terrorists is good says all you need to know about what a disaster for our country a Corbyn premiership would be
There are 23,000 extremists in this country the security services know who most of them are, tag them, intern them but do not leave them to wander free any more. As for rich people, before Corbyn takes office half of them will already have fled to Geneva and Monaco, the Bahamas and Singapore leaving the rest of us to pick up most of the tab for his Christmas list!
Hamas are not terrorist. I do not know the details of what went down in Pakistan when Osama Bin Laden was killed, but it would have been better had he been arrested, charged, and tried, and if that had occurred then he should have been allowed legal representation and the presumption of innocence. That applies to all criminals, including mass murderers. Perhaps that is the point that Jeremy Corbyn was making. Those are what I consider to be British values.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
"Shoot to kill" sounds a very cool sort of policy to have, but as opposed to what? My understanding is that nobody, but nobody, advocates a policy of shooting to wound or disable or whatever, because only in Westerns are people capable of that sort of fancy shooting. The usual advice is to shoot at the centre of the largest body part on offer in the hope of killing, with wounding as a second best outcome. So Jezza's policy actually boils down to no armed police, or else they get weapons but only to fire in the air (like at IRA funerals).
The above is pure armchair speculation, the closest I get to real gunfights is optimising the red deer population of the Scottish Highlands.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Corbyn is publicly opposed to shooting dead active terrorists, he wants the police to arrest them. Last night those rules would have caused further loss of life and put the police in mortal danger.
Typical! Turn my back for five minutes and I see Ayrshire's least intelligent turnip farmer favorite son has been smote with the ban hammer. Given what he routinely posts day in day out dare one inquire what, in general terms, earned this?
He got in a rather personal slanging match(*) with @Black_Rook, who is also on the naughty step. Combined, that's a net loss to us BTL, Black_Rook is one of the most insightful new posters of the last year.
(*) Technically, I don't know for sure that's the reason, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.
Thanks. Hopefully they'll calm down and be back with us shortly.
(...)If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
Corbyn opposed the killing of Bin Laden, a man who organised the murder of 3,000 people, he would be the weakest PM on national security in my lifetime and probably my parent's lifetime at a time we need tough action from the top. The fact you say being a 'friend' or terrorists is good says all you need to know about what a disaster for our country a Corbyn premiership would be
There are 23,000 extremists in this country the security services know who most of them are, tag them, intern them but do not leave them to wander free any more. As for rich people, before Corbyn takes office half of them will already have fled to Geneva and Monaco, the Bahamas and Singapore leaving the rest of us to pick up most of the tab for his Christmas list!
Hamas are not terrorist. I do not know the details of what went down in Pakistan when Osama Bin Laden was killed, but it would have been better had he been arrested, charged, and tried, and if that had occurred then he should have been allowed legal representation and the presumption of innocence. That applies to all criminals. Perhaps that is the point that Jeremy Corbyn was making. Those are what I consider to be British values.
No, Hamas are not terrorists no, they have organised suicide bombings, attacks against Israeli civilians and soldiers and rocket attacks but no, definitely not terrorists. The idea that the US Navy seals could have just walked into Bin Laden's heavily armed compound and just politely issued him with a warrant and taken him quietly away is so naïve and absurd it shows just how downright dangerous it will be for our country if Corbyn and his 'principles' get anywhere near No 10
Even though I'm a Love Your Neighbour kind of guy, I do believe in "national character" and preservation of same. Most immigrants do too - people come here because it's a nice place with certain qualities and values and they don't want it to change. Witness the paradox of immigrant families becoming anti-immigration. So although govts should be respectful of people's rights of free speech, of religious belief, the freedom to dress how one likes, etc. this shouldn't be at any price. That's what British Values education is supposed to be about. One thing which needs addressing is birth rates. When I was little it was the era of family planning - what happened to that? I think if we had a family-planning culture fewer immigrant families would think it normal/acceptable to have 6 kids. Did the govt finally change the rules so that families only get benefits for the first couple of kids? That's a start. No more immigration-by-arranged-marriage would be good too.
If families have fewer children that likely leads to more immigration in future. Therefore, assuming the immigration system does not start discriminating against those from cultures unlikely to integrate, discouraging large families implies a higher proportion of poorly integrated children in future.
I'd rather have more immigrants who share our values (whatever their nationality) than larger families of people who still think they're living in some backward village somewhere, think it's okay to marry cousins, or teenagers, or teenage cousins, and don't want their family members mixing with people from other backgrounds. Re-educating people is an exhausting and expensive process and we've allowed some people to be almost unreachable.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe are security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
And an equality impact assessment of the composition of the security team.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe are security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
The world in "Demolition Man" is approaching !
("Malcolmg, you have been fined one half credit for breaching the verbal morality statutes")
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
Lest they be faced with a hate crime investigation.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, !
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet,
Being a friend of Hamas is good.
Jeremy Corbyn does not oppose shooting to kill where it's necessary to save innocent lives, as it clearly was last night. No sensible person does.
Having a register of "extremists" and tagging everyone on it won't work. If they tagged everybody, that would be different. Perhaps they could make it an offence not to carry a switched on mobile phone? Or, more effective, not to wear a tag. Or, even more effective, not to be implanted with a microchip that communicates through one's phone or through the nearest few transceivers in a network of transceivers...placed in every room, vehicle, etc., and why not in every article of clothing, packet of washing-powder, etc. too?
Then a left-wing government will come to power and listen to all the rich people's discussions of tax-dodging with their family members and accountants! Imagine that! And Britain has no constitution requiring that laws mustn't be retrospective.
If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
Corbyn opposed the killing of Bin Laden, a man who organised the murder of 3,000 people, he would be the weakest PM on national security in my lifetime and probably my parent's lifetime at a time we half of them will already have fled to Geneva and Monaco, the Bahamas and Singapore leaving the rest of us to pick up most of the tab for his Christmas list!
Corbyn said that it was a tragedy that Bin Laden was not captured alive and put on trial. I am not sure that that was feasible, but it may well have been a far better demolition of Islamism than merely killing him.
Absolutely not, alive he would have just been a figurehead for resistance
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
That bloke lobbing all the stuff like a football hooligan to stop being murdered obviously didn't get the memo.
Mrs May says there is far too much toleration of extrmists in the UK....forgetting that she's been Home Secretary for the last 7 years.....
Last week she said 'Brexit will make us MORE prosperous' forgetting that before the referendum she said it would make us LESS prosperous.
Even with his Paul Smith suits Corbyn is looking more authentic by the day
Yes, Corbyn looks authentically like the weak appeaser he always was, if anyone has tolerated extremism it is Jeremy 'friend of Hamas' Corbyn and yes I would have liked May to have acted earlier but at least this morning she struck exactly the right tough tone ready to take on extremism, starting with the internet and in the privacy of the ballot box on Thursday when wavering voters will now have in the back of their minds who they can trust to keep their family and country safe, May or Corbyn, the evidence only points in one direction!
Seven years and things are getting worse. Whatever you do don't blame whatshername.
She is starting with a crackdown on extremism on the internet, hopefully she will then move
All parties of government in recent years oppose a shoot-to-kill policy. The police operate on a reasonable force policy and are subject to criminal sanctions if they use excessive force, which would include deliberate killing of an aggressor who could have been safely and reasonably stopped with non-lethal force.
Would Corbyn have made the call yesterday to have those three terrorists to be shot? We know Mrs May or Mrs Rudd did, Corbyn is opposed to a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, he's said this and in light of what happened yesterday how do we know that PM Corbyn wouldn't prioritise his beliefs by stopping all shoot to kill a orders over keeping the public safe.
Are you saying that the police opened fire last night on the orders of a politician?
In a sense of ensuring the rules are there for them to use lethal force against terrorists, not actively being in the phone.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
This. Is. Crucial. The BBC Trust judged the BBC News report into Corbyn's views on Shoot to Kill to be inaccurate. The Daily Mails well
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Well, Bradshaw asserted Brexit was engineered by the Russians, so he's clearly the perpetual fountain of truth and good sense.
FPT Re UK Sikhs not being as violent as UK Muslims...
Its more to do with numbers than intracacies of the religion. I said many times, once you get to 5-6% of the insurgent religion, trouble is inevitable. Looks like we are there
2001 2011 Christian 71.58% 59.49% Muslim 2.71% 4.41% Hindu 0.95% 1.32% Sikh 0.57% 0.43% Buddhist 0.26% 0.41%
I can only judge on the reports we get on the background of these terrorists and my experience from spending far too long on university campuses, that there is an issue and it isn't simply the kidz in the hood with no prospects.
Humans are primates, and in primate communities there has to be an alpha male. In the UK/Europe the alpha male was Christianity. As long as other religions were too small in number to mount an attack everything was ok. Now one is growing and beginning to want power, trouble is inevitable
"In understanding this matter, the beginning of wisdom is to grasp the law that in human societies power is never left unclaimed and unused. It does not blow about, like wastepaper on the streets, ownerless and inert. Men’s nature is not only, as Thucydides long ago asserted, to exert power where they have it; men cannot help themselves from exerting power where they have it, whether they want to or not. "
The secularists thought ceding Christianity's alpha male position would lead to power sharing... BIG mistake.
Same would apply if Islam was the Alpha male and Christianity started growing. That's why Islamic Republics don't allow it.
A grassroots Christian insurgency is not violent though (unless you count violence against Christians).
Well it could be. It wouldn't be Christian in the way these attacks aren't Islamic. The extremists are fleas on a dog, parasites of the religion really.
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
Gorman: Oh, great. Wonderful. Shit! [talking with the intercommunicator] Look... Uh... Apone. Look, we can't have any firing in there. I, uh... I want you to collect magazines from everybody. Hudson: Is he fucking crazy? Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?
Aliens really does encapsulate the whole of human life. And extraterrestrial life too, come to think of it.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
That bloke lobbing all the stuff like a football hooligan to stop being murdered obviously didn't get the memo.
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
But Islam is the religion of peace, Dr Fox. Haven't you heard?
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Corbyn is publicly opposed to shooting dead active terrorists, he wants the police to arrest them. Last night those rules would have caused further loss of life and put the police in mortal danger.
Is that definitely the case? The impression I got was that they were safely apprehended, but then shot because of the (fake) bomb vests. Which is a shame - not because I have any sympathy with the murderers, but because they would've been more useful alive, I think. It's also a shame that we don't have the stocks any more - it would've been useful propaganda to have British people, including Muslims, pelting and swearing at these guys.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Well, Bradshaw asserted Brexit was engineered by the Russians, so he's clearly the perpetual fountain of truth and good sense.
90% of the UAE population are migrants, and while many are professionals, the working class Indians, Nepalese, Phillipino and Sri Lankan migrants are nearly all either Christian or Hindu. I dont think they have had terrorism as a result.
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
The likes of Nawaz often argue that all other major religions have gone through a period of development, whereby outside of a tiny number, even the most religious don't believe in the literal word of the holy books / teaching. Rather they use them are general guidance and apply them in the context of the modern world.
He argues that the followers of Islam it is the other way around, with the minority who have that view, and that what needs to happen is for the religion to follow the same path of development.
For stating that he now needs round the clock protection.
@alantravis40: Fifty bullets were fired at three suicide attackers by 8 armed officers - Met police. One member of the public also hit but not fatally.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe are security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
And an equality impact assessment of the composition of the security team.
@AllieHBNews: officers fired an unprecedented number of rounds as they thought the attackers were wearing suicide vests & had to neutralise the situation
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Well, Bradshaw asserted Brexit was engineered by the Russians, so he's clearly the perpetual fountain of truth and good sense.
That bloke lobbing all the stuff like a football hooligan to stop being murdered obviously didn't get the memo.
I head him on the radio this morning, he deserves a medal, he was harassing the terrorists for quite a while from the sound of things. I'm sure he helped to prevent them killing more people.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
Corbyn is publicly opposed to shooting dead active terrorists, he wants the police to arrest them. Last night those rules would have caused further loss of life and put the police in mortal danger.
The IRA attack video (5.94m views) has a clip of him saying "I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy." The clip clearly ends mid-sentence so we don't get to hear why not.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe the security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
Gorman: Oh, great. Wonderful. Shit! [talking with the intercommunicator] Look... Uh... Apone. Look, we can't have any firing in there. I, uh... I want you to collect magazines from everybody. Hudson: Is he fucking crazy? Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?
Aliens really does encapsulate the whole of human life. And extraterrestrial life too, come to think of it.
Love the Aliens reference probably my favorite movie of all time.
If I am an armed police officer I would of course weigh up the situation but I am taking the shot. And it's not like they take the decision lightly, after firearm incidents they are fully investigated afterwards.
Getting rid of shoot to kill or changing the rules and regulations so it makes the decision much tougher to do it won't make the public safer, the opposite in fact.
I don't particularly care for Corbyn or Abbott, but I can't envisage even them scrapping armed police response. They might tinker with the rules of engagement, perhaps, to an unhelpful degree.
I believe are security forces would be allowed to use harsh words. But only if they weren't offensive to minority groups.
And an equality impact assessment of the composition of the security team.
"Scrub the mission, we are missing a lesbian."
Very unlikely in my experience of WPC's. It would be like running short of gay interior designers!
@HYUFD you keep asserting Corbyn opposes a shoot-to-kill policy, which is true, in the normal meaning of the term in British political discourse which is deliberate killing of terrorist suspects when arrest is safe and possible. This is a commonly understood term since (at least) the accusations against the RUC in the 80s. I can't find any evidence that he has questioned the use of reasonable force in line with current operational protocols.
The BBC interview in which he said he opposed STK was cut so it looked like he was answering a question about the necessary use of lethal force. He wasn't, and the BBC Trust ruled that the report gave an inaccurate portrayal of his views as a result.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
The albeit spurious notion that Theresa May personally gave the kill order should play very well.
This may sound a little cynical, but today has been Mrs May's most effective day of campaigning.
We are back in 100-200 majority territory!
It won't budge the polls.
Are you sure.
If the voting public believe what PB Tories believe, Mrs May, armed with her Heckler and Koch MP5 was scrambled in eight minutes and personally blew away the bad guys.
@HYUFD you keep asserting Corbyn opposes a shoot-to-kill policy, which is true, in the normal meaning of the term in British political discourse which is deliberate killing of terrorist suspects when arrest is safe and possible. This is a commonly understood term since (at least) the accusations against the RUC in the 80s. I can't find any evidence that he has questioned the use of reasonable force in line with current operational protocols.
The BBC interview in which he said he opposed STK was cut so it looked like he was answering a question about the necessary use of lethal force. He wasn't, and the BBC Trust ruled that the report gave an inaccurate portrayal of his views as a result.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
Why would police shoot to kill if arrest was "safe and possible"
@alantravis40: Fifty bullets were fired at three suicide attackers by 8 armed officers - Met police. One member of the public also hit but not fatally.
Bloody hell. No half measures there. Well done to the cops who responsed.
From the reports of the actions of the first (unarmed) bobby who confronted the terrorists, we should be polishing a George Medal or even possibly a George Cross.
The albeit spurious notion that Theresa May personally gave the kill order should play very well.
This may sound a little cynical, but today has been Mrs May's most effective day of campaigning.
We are back in 100-200 majority territory!
It won't budge the polls.
Are you sure.
If the voting public believe what PB Tories believe, Mrs May, armed with her Heckler and Koch MP5 was scrambled in eight minutes and personally blew away the bad guys.
@HYUFD you keep asserting Corbyn opposes a shoot-to-kill policy, which is true, in the normal meaning of the term in British political discourse which is deliberate killing of terrorist suspects when arrest is safe and possible. This is a commonly understood term since (at least) the accusations against the RUC in the 80s. I can't find any evidence that he has questioned the use of reasonable force in line with current operational protocols.
The BBC interview in which he said he opposed STK was cut so it looked like he was answering a question about the necessary use of lethal force. He wasn't, and the BBC Trust ruled that the report gave an inaccurate portrayal of his views as a result.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
When you are having to explain Corbyn's shoot to kill policy you have a problem
Comments
It could (and probably, should) have been devastating.
It wasn't.
D-
No comfort to the victims/relatives, of course. RIP.
(from same article).
No picture on the manifesto. The "Nicolocopter" doesn't even have a picture of Nicola on it...
Jeremy Corbyn does not oppose shooting to kill where it's necessary to save innocent lives, as it clearly was last night. No sensible person does.
Having a register of "extremists" and tagging everyone on it won't work. If they tagged everybody, that would be different. Perhaps they could make it an offence not to carry a switched on mobile phone? Or, more effective, not to wear a tag. Or, even more effective, not to be implanted with a microchip that communicates through one's phone or through the nearest few transceivers in a network of transceivers...placed in every room, vehicle, etc., and why not in every article of clothing, packet of washing-powder, etc. too?
Then a left-wing government will come to power and listen to all the rich people's discussions of tax-dodging with their family members and accountants! Imagine that! And Britain has no constitution requiring that laws mustn't be retrospective.
If technofascism is the answer, the question is wrong - and it would be time to keep one's values and leave the country.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34106214
Thank you for your extensive reply.
I've not suggested that the 20,000 cut should be re-instated like for like, more that the 20,000 resource might have been deployed more fruitfully. In addition to which there surely cannot be any doubt that such reductions have an escalating pressure on other parts of the service.
One would also hope that we have learnt the lessons of the past in terms of the operational effectiveness of community policing. As you indicate it is not an easy challenge but it is a challenge that must be faced. The present situation is not a viable option. The jigsaw of pieces that the state has at its disposal must function at fullest effectiveness. The disposal of 20,000 officers should never have been a lost piece of that jigsaw.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/871377569463099392
@SouthamObserver Why doesn't that surprise me about Trump? The man is a mess.
There are 23,000 extremists in this country the security services know who most of them are, tag them, intern them but do not leave them to wander free any more. As for rich people, before Corbyn takes office half of them will already have fled to Geneva and Monaco, the Bahamas and Singapore leaving the rest of us to pick up most of the tab for his Christmas list!
I don't know why Iran's even being brought into this. They're not the bad kind. The bad kind are the Sunni Wahhabists and Salafists, who are sworn enemies of the Shia Iran. Hezbollah aren't the bad kind either. The bad kind come from and are funded by the gulf monarchies, who are our geopolitical buddies. The bad kind are also the militant jihadists who *we* aid in Syria against the forces of a secular dictatorship which used to guarantee freedom of worship. Every day in Syria these same jihadists, funded and aided by us, do the same things we've seen in London and Manchester. These are the uncomfortable truths we must face.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
The fact remains all sorts of things could be done better, and almost all of those involves spending considerable sums of money, considerable sums that the public are singularly unwilling to pay for. The LDs suggested 1% for the NHS, a perfectly respectable and sensible policy, and are about to disappear from the electoral face of the earth!
The British public want the public services of Sweden, but the tax bill of Belize, and any politician that tries to disabuse them of their folly usually pays the price, see Phil Hammond and National Insurance recently.
If someone wants to settle in Norway and take up residency they have to take 300 hours of compulsory Norwegian Language, culture and history lessons. They are not allowed to have permanent residency until they have completed this. Norway - contrary to what the lunatic Brevik claimed - is one of the most integrated countries in the world in spite of having much higher per capita immigration levels than the UK. It doesn't matter where you came from, religion or any other dividers, the aim is to make you Norwegian in the ways that matter so you feel part of the community.
And it works. We could start with that as a basic guide to how to try and start to address these problems. It won't solve anywhere near everything but it will at least stop things getting worse.
Mohammad was familiar with Jewish and Christian stories, so incorporated them in part and in distorted form within his own teachings. He obviously claimed for the teachings to be different as he claimed to have the final and perfect revelation, and that all previous revalations had been corrupted.
That is not to deny that there are similarities, indeed much cross fertilisation between Islam, Jewish, Catholic and Orthodox theology. Karen Armstrong discusses the evolution of theology in these religions very well in 'A History of God". I dont think she properly discusses or understands Protestant Theology, at least in this work.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0055CS4L0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1496587926885
I am a Univeralist and do not believe that God is only accessible to professing Christians, but in this I am in agreement with Jesus, who explicitly commended the faith of a number of Samaritans, and even a Roman Centurion (who would be pagan). There are a number of strands of Islam that I like (particularly the Sufi teachings, but also the Shia emphasis on penance and social action), but I see Salafism as a wholly and unholy perversion.
No doubt it's the kind of intellectual exercise that appealed to people in medieval times, and still appeals today to people with that kind of bent. But as far as public policy is concerned, we just have to let people believe what they like within the law, and when they don't stay within the law deal with them without prejudice.
Hezbollah killed 85 people with a car bomb in Argentina (among many other japes). Is that really being not the bad kind?
But if a large group of WWC "Christians" started to grow at a rate in a rich Islamic country that was becoming less Islamic. I reckon there would be trouble in the same way there is here now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320764/Corbyn-not-happy-special-forces-given-orders-shoot-kill-terrorists-Britain-s-streets.html
Jeremy Corbyn today faces open revolt over his refusal to support police shooting dead marauding terrorists, with even his own shadow foreign secretary distancing himself from the Labour leader.
The Labour party is in uproar after Mr Corbyn said he was 'not happy' about armed officers and special forces had an order to kill fanatics to bring an atrocity to an end.
At a stormy meeting of Labour MPs last night senior figures lined up to criticise Mr Corbyn's refusal to support the police and security agencies in their battle to keep Britain safe.
As far as we're concerned, yes. We do not have a Hezbollah problem, or an Iran problem, or an Assad problem, nor did we have a Gadaffi problem, or a Saddam problem. \We have a wahhabist problem. Our politicians treat us as utter imbeciles as they continue to go after those who don't endanger us, and end up putting us in greater danger (power vacuum anyone?) in order to follow a pre-ordained geopolitical agenda which has nothing whatever to do with public safety.
(*) Technically, I don't know for sure that's the reason, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong.
The above is pure armchair speculation, the closest I get to real gunfights is optimising the red deer population of the Scottish Highlands.
("Malcolmg, you have been fined one half credit for breaching the verbal morality statutes")
How about Jihadi John? A sternly-worded e-mail and a polite request to attend the nearest police station ... if it was convenient?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriates_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates
The problem of Islamism is its violent response to challenge, which rather problematically is deeply rooted in early Muslim teachings and in the Koran itself.
Hudson: Is he fucking crazy?
Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?
Aliens really does encapsulate the whole of human life. And extraterrestrial life too, come to think of it.
"I'm guessing you haven't been on Twitter, then."
Surely not?
This may sound a little cynical, but today has been Mrs May's most effective day of campaigning.
We are back in 100-200 majority territory!
London
Con 34
Lab 48
South
Con 51
Lab 38
Midlands/Wales
Con 44
Lab 42
North
Con 36
Lab 50
Scotland
Con 30
Lab 27
SNP 36
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/f3ruqo8k0q/SundayTimesResults_170602_VI_W.pdf
https://twitter.com/_hanimustafa/status/871128171604783107
#fingeronthepulse
He argues that the followers of Islam it is the other way around, with the minority who have that view, and that what needs to happen is for the religion to follow the same path of development.
For stating that he now needs round the clock protection.
https://twitter.com/thepileus/status/871337897760346113
https://twitter.com/IanAustinMP/status/666528531736829952
IRA attack video (5.94m views) has a clip of him saying "I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy." The clip clearly ends mid-sentence so we don't get to hear why not.
If I am an armed police officer I would of course weigh up the situation but I am taking the shot. And it's not like they take the decision lightly, after firearm incidents they are fully investigated afterwards.
Getting rid of shoot to kill or changing the rules and regulations so it makes the decision much tougher to do it won't make the public safer, the opposite in fact.
The BBC interview in which he said he opposed STK was cut so it looked like he was answering a question about the necessary use of lethal force. He wasn't, and the BBC Trust ruled that the report gave an inaccurate portrayal of his views as a result.
If he *is* on the record opposing reasonable force, please can you cite some evidence? I can't find any and would be interested to know where the allegation comes from.
If the voting public believe what PB Tories believe, Mrs May, armed with her Heckler and Koch MP5 was scrambled in eight minutes and personally blew away the bad guys.
That being the case it will change the polling
From the reports of the actions of the first (unarmed) bobby who confronted the terrorists, we should be polishing a George Medal or even possibly a George Cross.