politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Reports of 20 dead after what appears to be terrorist incident

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

I don't think he will equivocate himself, but i think a fellow traveller will at some point as he has too.many stupid colleagues in stop the war etc.
I don't want that to happen, but it will. This GE should be about policy, not terror attacks.

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

We can only hope you are wrong. It would not be healthy for our democracy for an election to be decided by one issue swamping and overwhelming all of the others. In this instance the security policies of the Conservatives failed to stop the attack; indeed from the preliminary details it is not clear how it could have been stopped.

It is nevertheless probably a good thing that the election never really looked like much of a contest to begin with.

Islamic terrorism and its associated 'cause' have no sympathisers within British politics, and never have.

SouthamObserver said:

saddo said:

Terrible thing to happen, all those poor parents and family members impacted by this.

There will be an impact on the election I think. Talking with my daughters late 20 year old friend the other day, for him and his friends, the IRA were old history, something he was taught about in school. Therefore Corbyn and McDonnell's IRA support was meaningless.

Given the last time Manchester was bombed was the IRA attacking the Armadale Centre in 1996 ithis event might just make him and others of his generation understand how disgraceful Corbyn and McDonnell were and are to support another terrorist organisation.

Stop the War is what will do for Corbyn on this. When you spend decades cosying up to people who wish Britain harm you end up with a lot of baggage.

StW arose from opposition to the Iraq conflict, supported by Labour and Tory alike? The consequences of that war are at best arguable, but I don't feel like arguing it now.

IanB2 said:

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

We can only hope you are wrong. It would not be healthy for our democracy for an election to be decided by one issue swamping and overwhelming all of the others. In this instance the security policies of the Conservatives failed to stop the attack; indeed from the preliminary details it is not clear how it could have been stopped.

It is nevertheless probably a good thing that the election never really looked like much of a contest to begin with.

Islamic terrorism and its associated 'cause' have no sympathisers within British politics, and never have.

A lot of people that the Labour leader and those close to him have hung out with for years will be blaming the British state for last night's events. Nobody outside the evil fringe actively welcomes the murders that took place, but plenty on the far left and far right will be seeking to share the blame around. No-one asking us to be PM has links to the far right; one candidate, though, does have close, longstanding links to the far left. That is not something that can or should be skirted around. It is central to his credibility.

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

Corbyn hasn't been Home Secretary and then PM.

https://twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/866882243620478976

SouthamObserver said:

IanB2 said:

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

We can only hope you are wrong. It would not be healthy for our democracy for an election to be decided by one issue swamping and overwhelming all of the others. In this instance the security policies of the Conservatives failed to stop the attack; indeed from the preliminary details it is not clear how it could have been stopped.

It is nevertheless probably a good thing that the election never really looked like much of a contest to begin with.

Islamic terrorism and its associated 'cause' have no sympathisers within British politics, and never have.

A lot of people that the Labour leader and those close to him have hung out with for years will be blaming the British state for last night's events. Nobody outside the evil fringe actively welcomes the murders that took place, but plenty on the far left and far right will be seeking to share the blame around. No-one asking us to be PM has links to the far right; one candidate, though, does have close, longstanding links to the far left. That is not something that can or should be skirted around. It is central to his credibility.

As I said, there is a legitimate argument to be had about the consequences of our foreign policy, including the success or otherwise of our interventions since Iraq. But I don't feel like having it whilst parents are still unsure whether their children are alive. And none of that detracts from the responsibility of the individual who committed this atrocity, which is what I would expect all politicians to say.

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

I don't think he will equivocate himself, but i think a fellow traveller will at some point as he has too.many stupid colleagues in stop the war etc.
I don't want that to happen, but it will. This GE should be about policy, not terror attacks.

Andrew Neil / Jezza BBC Leader Interviews - 26th May

AN - "Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arena ISIS suicide bombing on Monday?"
JC - "Of course I do ...."
AN - Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arndale bombing by the IRA in 1996?"
JC - "Er ... we have to look at the context ....

Fade to black ....

Then Neil digs up a quote where he didn't condemn it.

In the interview I heard yesterday, he did condemn it. The issue, if there is one, is that he was eager at the same time to condemn other violence as well.

The_Apocalypse said:

MarqueeMark said:

This going to have a huge impact on the election. Labour are going to pay the price for offering up as our Prime Minister a guy who will be pilloried in coming days as the terrorists' friend.

How some people's first thoughts during incidents like this can be political is beyond me.

That your side were already nailed on to win the GE makes it even worse.

Because it *is* political.

People who choose or have chosen to offer political support to groups seeking to use murderous campaigns as a political act take a political stance, and when they issue weasel words to cover their backsides they need to be held to account.

Last year it was only a very few hours before 'respected' commentators were out and about trying to link the murder of Jo Cox to the Brexit campaign.

I would put it that not discussing this politically is an unwitting insult to the memory of the victims of the bombing ... no matter who carried out the attack.

Yes ... hold a respectful silence. But we cannot stop the democratic process.

MattW said:

The_Apocalypse said:

MarqueeMark said:

This going to have a huge impact on the election. Labour are going to pay the price for offering up as our Prime Minister a guy who will be pilloried in coming days as the terrorists' friend.

How some people's first thoughts during incidents like this can be political is beyond me.

That your side were already nailed on to win the GE makes it even worse.

Because it *is* political.

People who choose or have chosen to offer political support to groups seeking to use murderous campaigns as a political act take a political stance, and when they issue weasel words to cover their backsides they need to be held to account.

Last year it was only a very few hours before 'respected' commentators were out and about trying to link the murder of Jo Cox to the Brexit campaign.

I would put it that not discussing this politically is an unwitting insult to the memory of the victims of the bombing ... no matter who carried out the attack.

Yes ... hold a respectful silence. But we cannot stop the democratic process.

Thankfully, despite all the suggestions to the contrary at the time, it appears that the Jo Cox tragedy had no discernible effect on the referendum vote. Can you imagine the situation we would be in now if lots of people held the view that it had? We can only hope for the same regarding the GE.

Amber Rudd statement:

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/866886306927923204

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

I don't think he will equivocate himself, but i think a fellow traveller will at some point as he has too.many stupid colleagues in stop the war etc.
I don't want that to happen, but it will. This GE should be about policy, not terror attacks.

Andrew Neil / Jezza BBC Leader Interviews - 26th May

AN - "Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arena ISIS suicide bombing on Monday?"
JC - "Of course I do ...."
AN - Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arndale bombing by the IRA in 1996?"
JC - "Er ... we have to look at the context ....

Fade to black ....

Then Neil digs up a quote where he didn't condemn it.

In the interview I heard yesterday, he did condemn it. The issue, if there is one, is that he was eager at the same time to condemn other violence as well.

Was thinking more of an historical one. Not hard to imagine, especially given things like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-was-arrested-at-ira-demo-brighton-bomber-solidarity-protest-old-bailey-labour-gd3tnhmrt

And the terrorist violence was eventually solved by a Government talking to the terrorists whilst publicly insisting that it wouldn't, and by government acting to address underlying grievances whilst insisting we never give in to terrorists.

The trouble we face now is that there is no obvious equivalent political way we can approach the latest terrorist threat. But I dont see a military solution.

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

I don't think he will equivocate himself, but i think a fellow traveller will at some point as he has too.many stupid colleagues in stop the war etc.
I don't want that to happen, but it will. This GE should be about policy, not terror attacks.

Andrew Neil / Jezza BBC Leader Interviews - 26th May

AN - "Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arena ISIS suicide bombing on Monday?"
JC - "Of course I do ...."
AN - Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arndale bombing by the IRA in 1996?"
JC - "Er ... we have to look at the context ....

Fade to black ....

Then Neil digs up a quote where he didn't condemn it.

In the interview I heard yesterday, he did condemn it. The issue, if there is one, is that he was eager at the same time to condemn other violence as well.

Was thinking more of an historical one. Not hard to imagine, especially given things like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-was-arrested-at-ira-demo-brighton-bomber-solidarity-protest-old-bailey-labour-gd3tnhmrt

And the terrorist violence was eventually solved by a Government talking to the terrorists whilst publicly insisting that it wouldn't, and by government acting to address underlying grievances whilst insisting we never give in to terrorists.

The trouble we face now is that there is no obvious equivalent political way we can approach the latest terrorist threat. But I dont see a military solution.

Why on earth was he protesting the trial? Was the trial unfair?

IanB2 said:

MattW said:

The_Apocalypse said:

MarqueeMark said:

This going to have a huge impact on the election. Labour are going to pay the price for offering up as our Prime Minister a guy who will be pilloried in coming days as the terrorists' friend.

How some people's first thoughts during incidents like this can be political is beyond me.

That your side were already nailed on to win the GE makes it even worse.

Because it *is* political.

People who choose or have chosen to offer political support to groups seeking to use murderous campaigns as a political act take a political stance, and when they issue weasel words to cover their backsides they need to be held to account.

Last year it was only a very few hours before 'respected' commentators were out and about trying to link the murder of Jo Cox to the Brexit campaign.

I would put it that not discussing this politically is an unwitting insult to the memory of the victims of the bombing ... no matter who carried out the attack.

Yes ... hold a respectful silence. But we cannot stop the democratic process.

Thankfully, despite all the suggestions to the contrary at the time, it appears that the Jo Cox tragedy had no discernible effect on the referendum vote. Can you imagine the situation we would be in now if lots of people held the view that it had? We can only hope for the same regarding the GE.

Not that it matters much (well, it does when you have the sort of money @pulpstar has on it!), but if there is a shift from Labour to the Tories in the polls, don't assume that it's real. The Jo Cox murder may have caused a shift to Remain in the polls, but not in the actual vote.

I assume we'll have a speech from May sometimes after COBRA?

tlg86 said:

Oh dear, this is what I've feared for a long time now. As someone who attends football matches nearly every week, I've always said that the riskiest time is after the match. So much effort is made to searching those with tickets (and given the flares that get in, I'm not sure a great job is done).

But take a stadium like the Emirates. After the game there is nothing to stop someone walking up on to those bridges and causing carnage.

Yes. The only solution would be to stagger departures massively?

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Oh dear, this is what I've feared for a long time now. As someone who attends football matches nearly every week, I've always said that the riskiest time is after the match. So much effort is made to searching those with tickets (and given the flares that get in, I'm not sure a great job is done).

But take a stadium like the Emirates. After the game there is nothing to stop someone walking up on to those bridges and causing carnage.

Yes. The only solution would be to stagger departures massively?

extra security in areas close to exit routes is the obvious step,such as searching people hanging around in the minutes before a major event turns out. And insisting relatives or friends wait to meet people coming out at a distance from the stadium.

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Oh dear, this is what I've feared for a long time now. As someone who attends football matches nearly every week, I've always said that the riskiest time is after the match. So much effort is made to searching those with tickets (and given the flares that get in, I'm not sure a great job is done).

But take a stadium like the Emirates. After the game there is nothing to stop someone walking up on to those bridges and causing carnage.

Yes. The only solution would be to stagger departures massively?

At the least I'd like to see more security after the game. Perhaps there is and I don't see it. But due to funding cuts there are hardly any police outside the Emirates any more. Presumably that's because we're so middle class (contrast to police on Tottenham High Road at the NLD!).

But it certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to have a few cops at strategic locations around the ground looking for anyone behaving strangely.

I'm expecting heightened security at the Cup Final on Saturday.

RobD said:

I assume we'll have a speech from May sometimes after COBRA?

Indeed. In Downing Street.

The Prime Minister will have the full panoply of government and state behind her in the coming week and more.

Jezza will have twitter and er ....

MattW said:

IanB2 said:

MattW said:

The_Apocalypse said:

MarqueeMark said:

This going to have a huge impact on the election. Labour are going to pay the price for offering up as our Prime Minister a guy who will be pilloried in coming days as the terrorists' friend.

How some people's first thoughts during incidents like this can be political is beyond me.

That your side were already nailed on to win the GE makes it even worse.

Because it *is* political.

People who choose or have chosen to offer political support to groups seeking to use murderous campaigns as a political act take a political stance, and when they issue weasel words to cover their backsides they need to be held to account.

Last year it was only a very few hours before 'respected' commentators were out and about trying to link the murder of Jo Cox to the Brexit campaign.

I would put it that not discussing this politically is an unwitting insult to the memory of the victims of the bombing ... no matter who carried out the attack.

Yes ... hold a respectful silence. But we cannot stop the democratic process.

Thankfully, despite all the suggestions to the contrary at the time, it appears that the Jo Cox tragedy had no discernible effect on the referendum vote. Can you imagine the situation we would be in now if lots of people held the view that it had? We can only hope for the same regarding the GE.

Not sure that there was *no* impact - perhaps a small % change or a difference in the majority. Unprovable one way or the other, however, I suspect. eg

"There has been a shift in public opinion following the death of MP Jo Cox, a new poll indicates.

A ComRes poll for the Sunday Mirror shows before Jo was shot, 45% of those surveyed said they would be ‘delighted’ if Britain left the EU.

But after the 41-year-old was shot at 2pm on Thursday, that figure dropped to 38% – with Remain getting a nine point increase in those saying they would be ‘delighted’ to stay in the EU.

The sample size is small as the tragic news came midway through the polling, with some answers coming back before it and some afterwards."

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/18/leave-and-remain-camps-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll-5953294/#ixzz4hsSHoPdm"

But it appears to have been knee-jerk, and by the time of the vote largely forgotten. In the intervening year I have never heard any suggestion that Leave would have won big had it not been for the tragedy.

We need the same to happen again. None of us should want a situation where a minority end up believing the election was decided as a consequence of an appalling incident like this.

oxfordsimon said:

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Oh dear, this is what I've feared for a long time now. As someone who attends football matches nearly every week, I've always said that the riskiest time is after the match. So much effort is made to searching those with tickets (and given the flares that get in, I'm not sure a great job is done).

But take a stadium like the Emirates. After the game there is nothing to stop someone walking up on to those bridges and causing carnage.

Yes. The only solution would be to stagger departures massively?

extra security in areas close to exit routes is the obvious step,such as searching people hanging around in the minutes before a major event turns out.

You can add layer upon layer of extra security - but we cannot secure every busy public space.

Intelligence is going to continue to be the main way of preventing attacks - the more we disrupt before it can happen, the safer we will be. We cannot rely on a relatively small number of security guards at big events to prevent evil people every time.

No we can't. And what are we going to do, are we going to arm them all? And have them with weapons surrounded by the public? That is a recipe for further disasters. Intelligence is indeed the key but the more fragmented the terrorists become (and both Al Quaeda and ISIS are way more fragmented than they were) the harder it gets to spot the nutters.

tlg86 said:

oxfordsimon said:

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

tlg86 said:

Oh dear, this is what I've feared for a long time now. As someone who attends football matches nearly every week, I've always said that the riskiest time is after the match. So much effort is made to searching those with tickets (and given the flares that get in, I'm not sure a great job is done).

But take a stadium like the Emirates. After the game there is nothing to stop someone walking up on to those bridges and causing carnage.

Yes. The only solution would be to stagger departures massively?

extra security in areas close to exit routes is the obvious step,such as searching people hanging around in the minutes before a major event turns out.

You can add layer upon layer of extra security - but we cannot secure every busy public space.

Intelligence is going to continue to be the main way of preventing attacks - the more we disrupt before it can happen, the safer we will be. We cannot rely on a relatively small number of security guards at big events to prevent evil people every time.

The problem is that the focus is on searching those entering events with tickets. Obviously a terrorist could get a ticket so no problem there. But after the event, the doors are open and anyone can walk in. That's the problem.

But as far as we can tell, this incident took place in the foyer/lobby area - not the arena itself. And foyers are almost always open to the public - they contain the box office and often a coffee shop/bar.

I don't believe we want to expect to be searched going in to buy some tickets or to grab a coffee. The same goes for parents/partners waiting in the lobby to meet someone attending an event.

But if we do secure all those areas, the threat moves to the spaces immediately surrounding the entry points.

And if we then secure those public spaces, the threat moves to adjacent streets and transport hubs.

Yes, we need security - but we have to be realistic as to what that can achieve and be honest about the sort of society we want to live in.

Hard to disagree with @jackW on this. Was on PB last night. It is a shocking atrocity.

https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/866894998415003648

So possibly 'only' 18 victims, though as with other attacks the death toll may rise.

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

Totally off topic, the Germans have today - for the first time since the creation of the Euro - acknowledged that low inflation has made it harder for peripheral countries to recover.

Guys, if you'd recognized this about seven years ago, an awful lot of human suffering might have been avoided.

Yes but the projet was more important than mere humans......

those humane germans rejecting any debt relief for Greece until their election is out of the way

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/eurokrise/griechenland/griechenland-wolfgang-schaeuble-lehnt-schuldenschnitt-ab-15028080.html

https://twitter.com/alicia_ms/status/866897121089392646

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/866894998415003648

So possibly 'only' 18 victims, though as with other attacks the death toll may rise.

However, if initial reports didn't realise it was a suicide bomber, that might explain why they were talking about 20 victims.

Death toll rises to 22, confirmation it was a male suicide bomber and that " Children " are among the dead.

Jeeez. There aren't really words to describe what one wants to say. Awful just doesn't touch the surface.

Malmesbury said:

CarlottaVance said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

I don't think he will equivocate himself, but i think a fellow traveller will at some point as he has too.many stupid colleagues in stop the war etc.
I don't want that to happen, but it will. This GE should be about policy, not terror attacks.

Andrew Neil / Jezza BBC Leader Interviews - 26th May

AN - "Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arena ISIS suicide bombing on Monday?"
JC - "Of course I do ...."
AN - Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arndale bombing by the IRA in 1996?"
JC - "Er ... we have to look at the context ....

Fade to black ....

Then Neil digs up a quote where he didn't condemn it.

In the interview I heard yesterday, he did condemn it. The issue, if there is one, is that he was eager at the same time to condemn other violence as well.

Was thinking more of an historical one. Not hard to imagine, especially given things like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-was-arrested-at-ira-demo-brighton-bomber-solidarity-protest-old-bailey-labour-gd3tnhmrt

And the terrorist violence was eventually solved by a Government talking to the terrorists whilst publicly insisting that it wouldn't, and by government acting to address underlying grievances whilst insisting we never give in to terrorists.

And by the military defeat of the Irish terrorists (which Corbyn opposed) - but which is much more difficult in this case.

I fear 'terrorism' will be with us always - there will always be an 'injustice' or 'insult' sociopaths believe its worth killing and dying for. The only way we can 'defeat' it is to carry on.

The brutality of the "military" portion of the Northern Ireland process was quite startling. Not the time or the place to go into details.

Yep. The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility.

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

I don't think he will equivocate himself, but i think a fellow traveller will at some point as he has too.many stupid colleagues in stop the war etc.
I don't want that to happen, but it will. This GE should be about policy, not terror attacks.

Andrew Neil / Jezza BBC Leader Interviews - 26th May

AN - "Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arena ISIS suicide bombing on Monday?"
JC - "Of course I do ...."
AN - Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arndale bombing by the IRA in 1996?"
JC - "Er ... we have to look at the context ....

Fade to black ....

Then Neil digs up a quote where he didn't condemn it.

In the interview I heard yesterday, he did condemn it. The issue, if there is one, is that he was eager at the same time to condemn other violence as well.

Was thinking more of an historical one. Not hard to imagine, especially given things like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-was-arrested-at-ira-demo-brighton-bomber-solidarity-protest-old-bailey-labour-gd3tnhmrt

And the terrorist violence was eventually solved by a Government talking to the terrorists whilst publicly insisting that it wouldn't, and by government acting to address underlying grievances whilst insisting we never give in to terrorists.

The trouble we face now is that there is no obvious equivalent political way we can approach the latest terrorist threat. But I dont see a military solution.

The key difference was that the terrorists had realised their campaign was both failing and counterproductive so talks took place on the targets' terms. IS are not at the stage where we can do that yet.

Remember the key problem with Corbyn and the IRA was that whatever his views on their methods he wanted them to win - it wasn't a peace he wanted but a surrender. That may have been a tenable solution in NI failing all else, it is not with Daesh.

That's not completely true. The IRA had also learned that the most effective targets were economic and not military: Canary Wharf and the Baltic Exchange. For the first time, the Uk was under pressure from business, particularly in financial services, to come to a settlement.

IanB2 said:

SouthamObserver said:

saddo said:

Terrible thing to happen, all those poor parents and family members impacted by this.

There will be an impact on the election I think. Talking with my daughters late 20 year old friend the other day, for him and his friends, the IRA were old history, something he was taught about in school. Therefore Corbyn and McDonnell's IRA support was meaningless.

Given the last time Manchester was bombed was the IRA attacking the Armadale Centre in 1996 ithis event might just make him and others of his generation understand how disgraceful Corbyn and McDonnell were and are to support another terrorist organisation.

Stop the War is what will do for Corbyn on this. When you spend decades cosying up to people who wish Britain harm you end up with a lot of baggage.

StW arose from opposition to the Iraq conflict, supported by Labour and Tory alike? The consequences of that war are at best arguable, but I don't feel like arguing it now.

STW was set up 3 days after 9/11. Not in response to the Iraq war.

I would expect Corbyn to say the right things now. But some may note whom he is proposing for Home Secretary and what she has said about attacks on Britain and the intelligence services.

But, really, at this time my thoughts are with those killed and injured: children, for God's sake. It is utterly revolting and so so sad.

RIP and condolences to all those involved and a thank you to the emergency services.

I have family living in Manchester. My youngest is at the university there. He goes to concerts and clubs and festivals and football matches. One cannot live with one's heart in one's mouth every time your child goes out. My first thought on hearing the news last night was to check that he was OK. Unbearable to think of other parents looking for their children and not getting a good answer.

Good morning.

Horrible news. Worrying in the sophistication of the attack. Needed more planning and support and therefore more noticeable than a rented truck or kitchen knife.

TOPPING said:

Good morning.

Horrible news. Worrying in the sophistication of the attack. Needed more planning and support and therefore more noticeable than a rented truck or kitchen knife.

Depends on what explosive was used, surely? The Soho bombings were one nutcase in a garden shed with access to a library.

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

Good morning.

Horrible news. Worrying in the sophistication of the attack. Needed more planning and support and therefore more noticeable than a rented truck or kitchen knife.

Depends on what explosive was used, surely? The Soho bombings were one nutcase in a garden shed with access to a library.

Whatever flavour it requires more organisation and contingent moving parts.

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

..

Then Neil digs up a quote where he didn't condemn it.

In the interview I heard yesterday, he did condemn it. The issue, if there is one, is that he was eager at the same time to condemn other violence as well.

Was thinking more of an historical one. Not hard to imagine, especially given things like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-was-arrested-at-ira-demo-brighton-bomber-solidarity-protest-old-bailey-labour-gd3tnhmrt

And the terrorist violence was eventually solved by a Government talking to the terrorists whilst publicly insisting that it wouldn't, and by government acting to address underlying grievances whilst insisting we never give in to terrorists.

The trouble we face now is that there is no obvious equivalent political way we can approach the latest terrorist threat. But I dont see a military solution.

The key difference was that the terrorists had realised their campaign was both failing and counterproductive so talks took place on the targets' terms. IS are not at the stage where we can do that yet.

Remember the key problem with Corbyn and the IRA was that whatever his views on their methods he wanted them to win - it wasn't a peace he wanted but a surrender. That may have been a tenable solution in NI failing all else, it is not with Daesh.

That's not completely true. The IRA had also learned that the most effective targets were economic and not military: Canary Wharf and the Baltic Exchange. For the first time, the Uk was under pressure from business, particularly in financial services, to come to a settlement.

And, behind the scenes, government was acting to address many of the grievances that gave the terrorists a support base in the community; a long-term programme to deal with issues such as housing allocation, local authority spending, democratic participation, etc. Credit to the politicians involved who recognised things are complicated and thst simplistic solutions weren't going to work.

Talking of which, I had a quick scan of last night's PB thread and am stunned to see a few posts along the lines of "now we need to ban the veil", made as the news was breaking. Idiotic responses like this we do not need.

And to complete the picture - most of the hardline opponents of a compromise in the Republican and Loyalist groups were dead. Often after being outed as "touts" by their own organisations. So the "bitter enders" were dead and/or discredited.

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

..

And the terrorist violence was eventually solved by a Government talking to the terrorists whilst publicly insisting that it wouldn't, and by government acting to address underlying grievances whilst insisting we never give in to terrorists.

The trouble we face now is that there is no obvious equivalent political way we can approach the latest terrorist threat. But I dont see a military solution.

The key difference was that the terrorists had realised their campaign was both failing and counterproductive so talks took place on the targets' terms. IS are not at the stage where we can do that yet.

Remember the key problem with Corbyn and the IRA was that whatever his views on their methods he wanted them to win - it wasn't a peace he wanted but a surrender. That may have been a tenable solution in NI failing all else, it is not with Daesh.

That's not completely true. The IRA had also learned that the most effective targets were economic and not military: Canary Wharf and the Baltic Exchange. For the first time, the Uk was under pressure from business, particularly in financial services, to come to a settlement.

And, behind the scenes, government was acting to address many of the grievances that gave the terrorists a support base in the community; a long-term programme to deal with issues such as housing allocation, local authority spending, democratic participation, etc. Credit to the politicians involved who recognised things are complicated and thst simplistic solutions weren't going to work.

Talking of which, I had a quick scan of last night's PB thread and am stunned to see a few posts along the lines of "now we need to ban the veil", made as the news was breaking. Idiotic responses like this we do not need.

The Catholic community in Northern Ireland had genuine grievances. Had those been addressed from the start it is quite possible that the terrorist campaign would not have started or lasted as long as it did.

Daesh want an Islamic caliphate anywhere where there has been Islam. They want sharia law to rule and they want and believe that Islam should take over the world. They have a very particular view of what Islam should be and how they should copy Mohammed's example. See the recent Tom Holland documentary on Channel 4 - "ISIS - The Roots of Violence". There is no bargaining with such people. Just their complete defeat: militarily and ideologically.

I have to get to work. I have a feeling it is going to be very subdued today. A number of my colleagues are from Manchester.

Pob bendith.

CarlottaVance said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

JackW said:

The implications for the general election are stark.

I expect the Prime Minister to handle this outrage in a calm and measured fashion and yes this will play into the theme of "strong and stable leadership".

I expect Jezza to be politically eviscerated. There will be no hiding place for his equivocations on terrorism. One chink in the coming days and he is utterly done. Even if he managed to find a form of words that appear appropriate to this event, the damage from his previous statements will come back with a vengeance.

The general election is over for Jezza, even more so than it was before.

I don't think he will equivocate himself, but i think a fellow traveller will at some point as he has too.many stupid colleagues in stop the war etc.
I don't want that to happen, but it will. This GE should be about policy, not terror attacks.

Andrew Neil / Jezza BBC Leader Interviews - 26th May

AN - "Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arena ISIS suicide bombing on Monday?"
JC - "Of course I do ...."
AN - Do you utterly condemn the Manchester Arndale bombing by the IRA in 1996?"
JC - "Er ... we have to look at the context ....

Fade to black ....

Then Neil digs up a quote where he didn't condemn it.

In the interview I heard yesterday, he did condemn it. The issue, if there is one, is that he was eager at the same time to condemn other violence as well.

Was thinking more of an historical one. Not hard to imagine, especially given things like this:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jeremy-corbyn-was-arrested-at-ira-demo-brighton-bomber-solidarity-protest-old-bailey-labour-gd3tnhmrt

And the terrorist violence was eventually solved by a Government talking to the terrorists whilst publicly insisting that it wouldn't, and by government acting to address underlying grievances whilst insisting we never give in to terrorists.

And by the military defeat of the Irish terrorists (which Corbyn opposed) - but which is much more difficult in this case.

I fear 'terrorism' will be with us always - there will always be an 'injustice' or 'insult' sociopaths believe its worth killing and dying for. The only way we can 'defeat' it is to carry on.

Unfortunately, the rise in suicide bombers is closely linked to the rise in Islamic extremism. Whilst a religion promises Nirvana for sacrificing yourself for the 'cause' we will continue to see these atrocities

ydoethur said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Pulpstar said:

Jez's interview will now be delayed I suspect thus moving it from the less watched friday evening slot.
The Tories are fortuitous the care clarification/u-turn was brought in seeing as the clock is now stopped.
Anyway hopefully this won't change any voting intentions, I can't see it doing any harm to the incumbent mind.

I doubt it about Jez interview: only Tuesday today, and life goes on - and every disruption resulting from last night is victory of sorts for the bomber. 1 day suspension, then on we go.

I agree with that. It will be dominated by this of course but if he tried to postpone it (a) it would suggest terrorism is disrupting our democratic process and (b) it would give his many critics far too good an opportunity to say he's frightened of being quizzed about his record on terrorism.

The first is a compelling reason why the interview should go ahead. The second is sadly unavoidable in light of his past.

There are more leaders than Corbyn and May in the game. I've not suggested Jeremy would suspend it unilaterally - more a consequence of natural scheduling drift. I'm not convinced its particularly fair to give whoever an interview today - imagine if it had been May, the schedule most certainly would have been punted forward as she'd be way too busy/distracted with COBRA to turn up.

Cyclefree said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

..

The trouble we face now is that there is no obvious equivalent political way we can approach the latest terrorist threat. But I dont see a military solution.

That's not completely true. The IRA had also learned that the most effective targets were economic and not military: Canary Wharf and the Baltic Exchange. For the first time, the Uk was under pressure from business, particularly in financial services, to come to a settlement.

And, behind the scenes, government was acting to address many of the grievances that gave the terrorists a support base in the community; a long-term programme to deal with issues such as housing allocation, local authority spending, democratic participation, etc. Credit to the politicians involved who recognised things are complicated and thst simplistic solutions weren't going to work.

Talking of which, I had a quick scan of last night's PB thread and am stunned to see a few posts along the lines of "now we need to ban the veil", made as the news was breaking. Idiotic responses like this we do not need.

The Catholic community in Northern Ireland had genuine grievances. Had those been addressed from the start it is quite possible that the terrorist campaign would not have started or lasted as long as it did.

Daesh want an Islamic caliphate anywhere where there has been Islam. They want sharia law to rule and they want and believe that Islam should take over the world. They have a very particular view of what Islam should be and how they should copy Mohammed's example. See the recent Tom Holland documentary on Channel 4 - "ISIS - The Roots of Violence". There is no bargaining with such people. Just their complete defeat: militarily and ideologically.

Absolutely there is no obvious route to a political solution, and no bargaining with such people. It doesn't necessarily follow from this however that military action will always make the situation better and never make it worse. Islamic terrorism is not based on organisation, but spreads like a virus based on perverted belief. Given previous incidents there is a reasonable probability that yesterday's criminal may well be local and probably had no links with ISIS operatives abroad.

Hope nobody's been personally affected by this tragedy.

Edited extra bit: nobody here*, obviously.

Terrible day for those who have been.

Awful news. Thoughts with the victims and families.

Paristonda said:

Between this attack, and others of a similar nature such as the stade de france bomb in 2015, or even the Brussels airport attack, it seems terrorists have learnt to target the more vulnerable exteriors rather than trying to get inside past security. Hard to control against this. Perhaps the grounds around stadiums/airports/public arenas needs to also be cordoned off with security controls, before you can even approach the main building.

Bruce Schneier has written about this kind of thing - essentially any security checkpoint becomes a choke point where the animals can wrack up mass casualties.

I struggle with how some people are speculating on the political ramifications of this. Some kids went to a concert and aren't coming home again. Others have suffered gratuitous injuries. This event is NOT something where "Corbyn's in trouble now" fantasies are appropriate. Or May's in trouble for that matter given that ISIS operate regardless of who is in power.

This isn't the IRA, and comparisons to that civil war are lazy. With ISIS there is no-one to negotiate with. No rational cause. No army to target. These suicide bombers are so often radicalised citizens of the state they then attack. There will be a solution to this, and that solution will be talking rather than bombing.

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

..

.

.

.

.

The Catholic community in Northern Ireland had genuine grievances. Had those been addressed from the start it is quite possible that the terrorist campaign would not have started or lasted as long as it did.

Daesh want an Islamic caliphate anywhere where there has been Islam. They want sharia law to rule and they want and believe that Islam should take over the world. They have a very particular view of what Islam should be and how they should copy Mohammed's example. See the recent Tom Holland documentary on Channel 4 - "ISIS - The Roots of Violence". There is no bargaining with such people. Just their complete defeat: militarily and ideologically.

Irish republicans saw (and see) themselves as maintaining an unbroken line from 1916 and before. It was not just that catholics couldn't get a job at Harland and Wolff. It was the desire for an independent, now united Ireland (as recently as yesterday you could hear Sinn Fein politicians articulate such a desire.

In the end, they lost, but many haven't stopped fighting.

Yes, but that isn't the point. There was systematic discrimination in housing, schooling, employment; Northern Ireland didnt even have one-person one vote for local elections (voting being tied to property long after this had been abandoned in rUK) and boundaries were gerrymandered to ensure unionist dominance of local institutions. Policing was notoriously partisan, often violent, and a blind eye turned to the crimes of loyalist paramilitaries. Things were so bad in the 1960s that significant parts of the catholic population actually welcomed the arrival of the British Army, at least initially, in 1969.

The point I was making wasn't about the political aspirations of the terrorists themselves, but about the environment that enabled them to maintain a support base, of funding, assistance and future recruits. No terrorist organisation (as distinct from lone wolves) can exist without tacit support from a wider community. Without forced resolution of these grievances it would never have been possible to secure a political settlement.

Mr. D, glad to hear they're ok

IanB2 said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

JackW said:

HaroldO said:

..

.

.

.

.

The Catholic community in Northern Ireland had genuine grievances. Had those been addressed from the start it is quite possible that the terrorist campaign would not have started or lasted as long as it did.

Daesh want an Islamic caliphate anywhere where there has been Islam. They want sharia law to rule and they want and believe that Islam should take over the world. They have a very particular view of what Islam should be and how they should copy Mohammed's example. See the recent Tom Holland documentary on Channel 4 - "ISIS - The Roots of Violence". There is no bargaining with such people. Just their complete defeat: militarily and ideologically.

Irish republicans saw (and see) themselves as maintaining an unbroken line from 1916 and before. It was not just that catholics couldn't get a job at Harland and Wolff. It was the desire for an independent, now united Ireland (as recently as yesterday you could hear Sinn Fein politicians articulate such a desire.

In the end, they lost, but many haven't stopped fighting.

Yes, but that isn't the point. There was systematic discrimination in housing, schooling, employment; Northern Ireland didnt even have one-person one vote for local elections (voting being tied to property long after this had been abandoned in rUK) and boundaries were gerrymandered to ensure unionist dominance of local institutions. Policing was notoriously partisan, often violent, and a blind eye turned to the crimes of loyalist paramilitaries. Things were so bad in the 1960s that significant parts of the catholic population actually welcomed the arrival of the British Army, at least initially, in 1969.

The point I was making wasn't about the political aspirations of the terrorists themselves, but about the environment that enabled them to maintain a support base, of funding, assistance and future recruits. No terrorist organisation (as distinct from lone wolves) can exist without tacit support from a wider community. Without forced resolution of these grievances it would never have been possible to secure a political settlement.

It tends to be forgotten now that the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland was almost totally successful in achieving reform, before the IRA campaign got going. The IRA's aim was to destroy the State, not to reform it.

Katie Hopkins calls for " a final solution " in response to Manchester.