politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinarily both CON and LAB fall to new lows on the Be

Scrapheap_as_was said:

anotherDave said:

MikeSmithson said:

Norm said:

MikeSmithson said:

Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.

Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.

You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.

So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?

Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

anotherDave said:

MikeSmithson said:

Norm said:

MikeSmithson said:

Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.

Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.

You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.

So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?

Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.

Pulpstar said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

anotherDave said:

MikeSmithson said:

Norm said:

MikeSmithson said:

Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.

Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.

You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.

So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?

Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.

Tory lead please so Reckless becomes halfway attractive to pile into on Betfair.

TGOHF said:

anotherDave said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

anotherDave said:

MikeSmithson said:

Norm said:

MikeSmithson said:

Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.

Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.

You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.

So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?

Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.

There have been three Rochester polls already.

The Conservative's predicted vote share has been flat: 31%, 30%, 33%

but there has been a larger range with UKIP's vote share: 40%, 43%, 48%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochester_and_Strood_by-election,_2014#Polling

Kippers to break through the 50% as Labour tend to zero ?

Socrates said:

Sean_F said:

Cyclefree said:

Socrates said:

Cyclefree said:

The irony is that, given what is said in the Koran about Jews, for instance, an Extreme Disruption Order would probably have to be given to every imam in the country.

That's the beauty of it. More Sullivan:

You can see the multiple, proliferating lines for government interference. If a gay man attacks Islam for being homophobic, he could be prosecuted. But ditto if a Muslim cleric denounces homosexuality. It’s win-win for government power to monitor and control public speech in all directions!

Quite. This proposal and Leveson would be the end of any free - let alone - robust speech or debate in this country.

I simply don't see how it can pass the ECHR test.

Article 10 has more holes than a Swiss cheese.

What we need is a strong and robust British Bill of Rights, enforced by British judges in an independent judiciary.

They can start with:

Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

anotherDave said:

MikeSmithson said:

Norm said:

MikeSmithson said:

Just watched last night Rochester debate. Liked the spunky performances by the two women - the CON & LAB contenders. Reckless came over poorly.

Thank you Mike - with all the Kelly bashing on here this morning you'd be forgiven for thinking she is a no-hoper. Given her relative inexperience she might not win a battle of clever political word games favoured by people with luvvie, jounalistic and public school/Oxbridge PPE backgrounds but for guts, likeability and authenticity she will appeal to the voters of R & S and I expect an improved snap-shot this afternoon.

You must really question the judgements on these matters of those earlier on the thread. Reckless simply does not have the personality to reach out. Kelly and the LAB woman do.

So are you expecting this afternoon's Rochester poll to show an increase in the Conservatives vote share?

Mike Smithson‏@MSmithsonPB·31 mins31 minutes ago
Big polling event at 4pm will be @LordAshcroft 's first Rochester by-election survey. Another double digit lead for Reckless? Not so sure.

Tory lead please so Reckless becomes halfway attractive to pile into on Betfair.

I've cut my loses on this one.

BenM said:

Financial Director Magazine rightly puts boot into Cameron over the EU and immigration.

"Cameron's posturing putting the UK economy at risk"

http://www.financialdirector.co.uk/financial-director/opinion/2380339/camerons-posturing-putting-the-uk-economy-at-risk?utm_term=&utm_content=Cameron's posturing putting the UK economy at risk&utm_campaign=FD.Weekly_RL.EU.A.U&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=FD.DCM.Editors_Updates

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.

.

It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.

We all know the problem here.

The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).

However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statute books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.

The answer to radical speech is more free speech, not less. Rather than try to ban opinions being publicly aired, what we need to do is provide a strong and compelling alternative narrative: that the democracy, institutions and liberal rights that have developed from this country's history over the centuries are fantastic things, that we should all be patriotic and proud to be part of such a country, and that the society created here as a result is superior to those in much of the world. The reason sick ideologies like conservative political Islam take hold is because we do not provide an alternative and do not call it out enough. That needs to end.

However, the criticism reserved for him is also worth noting. 36% of those asked thought Miliband’s main problem was that his policy offer has been too timid. While 28% thought there was no problem with Miliband at all, and 19% said the biggest issue was the perception that he’s ‘weird’.

The views on how to remedy negative news stories about Miliband are split. 49% think he should allow the Shadow Cabinet to take on more campaigning responsibilities, while 37% seem to think the opposite – that the public should see more of Miliband. Interestingly, a significant number 46% think Miliband should offer a more left wing platform, potentially chiming with those who think his policy offer is too timid.

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.

An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.

It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.

We all know the problem here.

The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).

However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.

Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.

The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.

An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.

It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.

We all know the problem here.

The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).

However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.

Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.

The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.

It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.

Much better not to ban anything.

If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".

We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.

With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.

Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.

We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.

An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.

It's really, really shocking. If one particular government minister decides your views justify hatred against any minority group than they can entirely control your public opinions. And think of that term, "justify hatred", and how weaselly it is. You don't actually have to express hatred yourself, you just need to give views which can be used to justify hatred by others. So if I pointed out the entirely accurate fact that Muhammed was a paedophile, for example, and the government decided that that could justify far right hatred of Muslims, I could be forced to submit everything I publish to the government for vetting.

We all know the problem here.

The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).

However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.

Exactly so. The desire not to discriminate when discrimination, in its old-fashioned and best sense (i.e. making a choice between what is good and bad) is what's needed leads people down this cul-de-sac.

The way to deal with bad Islamist ideas promulgated by vile Islamists is (a) not to let such people into the country in the first place; and (b) above all, to argue vigorously against such ideas, to mock, ridicule, undermine them and show them up for what they are, not the weak, lily-livered nonsense we do get, now and again.

It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.

Much better not to ban anything.

TGOHF said:

Alanbrooke said:

so use them and stop passing asshole legislation.

You do remember they had internment in NI.

And no email, twitter, mobile phones and snap chat ?

TGOHF said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".

With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.

Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.

We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.

I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".

If you do not understand why this is offensive to every tradition of British law, of the most fundamental beliefs of the Conservative Party, at least until its recent inhabitants took it over, then there's nothing further I can say to you.

It is not tosh - though what May and Osborne have said and written on this most certainly is. As to whether it's hysterical I will leave others to judge.

We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.

Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-

"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."

Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?

Islamic nut job terrorist attacks have had a very low success rate in the Uk- no thanks from you for that though.

Oh so easy for the armchair James Bonds...

TGOHF said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".

We have the rule of law in this country but a Conservative Minister thinks that this is not good enough. It is not enough to obey the law and not break any laws. You must also think and speak in a particular way and if the government doesn't like how you think, speak and behave it will try and curtail your activities anyway.

With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.



Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-

"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."

Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?

Islamic nut job terrorist attacks have had a very low success rate in the Uk- no thanks from you for that though.

Oh so easy for the armchair James Bonds...

Maybe they have a low success rate because there aren't so many of them and they're a bit crap.

Who should I thank for that ?

Cyclefree said:

TGOHF said:

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".

With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.

Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.

We could do nothing, of course, and maybe that is the right thing do. Personally I shall wait to see what is proposed before making a judgement on that. But we can't deny there's a real problem.

I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".



Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-

"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."

Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?

Islamic nut job terrorist attacks have had a very low success rate in the Uk- no thanks from you for that though.

Oh so easy for the armchair James Bonds...

They haven't needed the proposed Extremist Orders, though, have they?

You need patient, tenacious, properly resourced police and intelligence work to defeat terrorism.

Instead of which we learn from the same G Osborne, who wants the police to vet people's witterings on Facebook, that there will need to be significant cuts to the defence and police services in order to bring the deficit down.

FFS!

TGOHF said:

Alanbrooke said:

Maybe they have a low success rate because there aren't so many of them and they're a bit crap.

Who should I thank for that ?

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has heard yours.

TGOHF said:

Alanbrooke said:

Maybe they have a low success rate because there aren't so many of them and they're a bit crap.

Who should I thank for that ?

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has heard yours.

Alanbrooke said:

There was a time when Conservatives used to tell us that when we curtail the freedoms the security bods are meant to protect then the terrorists have won. Cameron's just about to run up the white flag.

Alanbrooke said:

Cyclefree said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Cyclefree said:

Ponder this, Richard: a senior Conservative (Conservative, mind you, the party of Edmund Burke and Disraeli ) Minister thinks that the government should be able to control the activities of people who "do not break laws".

...

With all due respect, that is the kind of hysterical tosh Socrates comes out with. We'll have to see exactly what is proposed, and what the safeguards are, before rushing to judgement.

Meanwhile, any sensible person recognises we've got a problem with people fomenting extremist views, which have been shown to lead to violence and murder.

...

I am quoting what George Osborne has said. He wants the government to bring in orders curtailing the activities of people who "do not break laws".

...

We do have a problem with extremist Islam and I have proposed - both on this thread and others - plenty of ways of dealing with it, which do not involve illiberal nonsense such as this. But the government has - bar the occasional good speech now and then - done precisely nothing on that score.

Perhaps as my final word to you on this topic I will quote Edmund Burke (whose biography by Jesse Norman, a Tory MP as it happens, I am currently reading):-

"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."

Looking at it in the round I'm increasingly scratching my head about what's conservative about the Conservatives ? They overspend and overtax, curtail the rights of the citrizen, weaken defence and leave the Blair\Brown settlement in place. What's the point of them ?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Alanbrooke said:

There was a time when Conservatives used to tell us that when we curtail the freedoms the security bods are meant to protect then the terrorists have won. Cameron's just about to run up the white flag.

For heaven's sake!

We haven't actually seen the proposals, but you of all people here should know that Conservative (and indeed Labour) governments of the past, faced with a terrorist threat, did far more in terms of intrusive surveillance, interception of communications, restraints on free speech, curtailment of rights in court, and above all interning suspected terrorists and their sympathisers than anything even remotely suggested by Osborne and Cameron.

The re-invention of history never ceases to amaze me. There was certainly no golden age of civil liberties that was ever any more golden than 2014.

I think a bigger criticism of the Extremist Disruption Orders is that, like previous such measures, they are unlikely to be effective, and might indeed be counter-productive. But I'll wait to see what is proposed before forming a view on that.

Alanbrooke said:

TGOHF said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Cyclefree said:

SeanT said:

Socrates said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Socrates, that kind of nonsense about the state giving permission to speak to its citizens is deeply disturbing.

An actual liberal party, which believed in personal liberty and had a strong capitalist approach to the economy, would be splendid. Sadly, none of the major parties are liberal.

We all know the problem here.

The government wants to target the evangelisers of jihad, especially on the Net (and they have good reason to do so, seeing how so many British jihadis have been radicalised, online).

However the government is weak-kneed and spineless, and daren't craft a law mentioning Islamism, lest it seem "racist" or "Islamophobic"; so they end up with some absurd catch-all legislation affecting everyone and his parrot, a draft law which is so draconian I predict it won't even reach the statue books. And thus we lose baby and bathwater.

It's not just Islamists though, is it? Breivik was not a Moslem and look at the filth he got his hands on - some of it, at least, from this country.

Much better not to ban anything.

If we can survive the Provos and UVF why can't we survive Islamic extremists ? There is no need for these laws, just better application of the ones we already have. And better police officers.

I'm sure we have our informers inside the Mullahs - just like Stakeknife and McGuinness etc..

so use them and stop passing asshole legislation.