"We have to do more to combat terrorism...but we refuse going to publish the report into funding and support of jihadist groups" - the Home Office
Corbyn represented a significant shift for the Labout party. Many didn't believe it would have a snowball's chance and were ready to try and get rid of him at the earliest excuse, which was then handled horribly. His performances now are positive and despite those MPs damaging him, he still has a chance to defy the odds and improve Labour's seats. They're quiet now and they will work with him in the future, if by some miracle he ends up as PM. Conservative MPs will be out for May in much the same way if she doesn't improve the Conservative's majority, it's just the way politics is. The fuss over Corbyn's leadership has been blown way out of proportion, there really isn't much he could do to prove himself at the time.
And what is the Dire leader saying? That we need to change our counter-terrorism measures...even though it was her job to protect this country with sufficient counter-terrorism measures for seven ****ing years! That's almost as pathetic as claiming that campaigning will be suspended while standing behind her lectern in Downing Street to announce new policies.
WTF does 'enough is enough' actually mean?? Has this government held back from enacting CT legislation to combat the threat? Hardly!!. Although over the past 7 years she has certainly overseen the greatest undermining of law enforcement ever witnessed in this country......
Trump considers it's an appropriate time to criticise the Mayor of London for trying to lessen the tension today. First of all, at this of all times he should surely be supporting and not criticising and more relevantly would be make the same comment if the MoL was not a Muslim?? #racistbigot #defeathate ❤️
It's just another buzzphrase to be repeated endlessly, just like "strong and stable", just like "magic money tree" and just like "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious means supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" However, the problem the Dire Leader has is the fact she's been caught using this buzzphrase endlessly, as she trotted out the exact same one after the Manchester attack and, far more importantly, the exact same phrase was used back by members of the Police Federation back in 2012 when the Home Secretary signed off on cuts to police numbers and funding please log in to view this image ...of course, there's another way "enough is enough" can be used against her (and, you know, the Tory party she keeps forgetting to mention every single time she makes a statement...) and that, quite simply, after seven years of austerity cuts, enough is enough. On the subject of enough is enough...
He also said this, as he's a total ****ing dickhead: If the latest attack is anything like the Westminster or Manchester ones, then a travel ban would make no difference. Pushing his agenda on the back of the dead is delightful, though. As for guns, just imagine what could've happened if the attackers had been armed. Actually, don't bother, as we saw what happened when they were in Paris.
I'm trying to work out what that gun debate comment is supposed to mean, and I am genuinely perplexed: it fails to prove that gun control works because, if gun control doesn't work as NRA cheerleaders constantly claim (usually with all manner of outright lies) surely those responsible would've had access to guns - and it fails to smear the gun control lobby because they have the easiest retort of all, namely how if those responsible had guns it could have been so much worse. So what is the point of that comment? That the travel ban should extend to all van drivers? Because that sounds like the doomsday scenario for EasyJet.
And the fact that this **** is being peddled on social media by the POTUS is now just accepted....... That's the ****ing frightening bit.......!!
He's trying to say that if they'd have done it in America and used guns, then people would be talking about gun control. Yep. As they should. The body count probably would've been much higher, too. He thinks that pointing out that there are other ways to kill people somehow ends the debate. He's also trying to appeal to his base again, which is basically all that he ever does on Twitter.
The myth of total security is that it is possible. It isn't, at least in a democratic society and probably not in any. The argument that "well that amount of security didn't work so let's pass laws for more" is completely flawed. We had troops on the streets of Northern Ireland for a couple of decades and it may have reduced terrorism but a lot of people still ended up being killed. And that was against an enemy that were trying not to be caught. If you're fighting people that don't care if they are killed, or that's their plan anyway it's even more difficult. The only thing that will help is stop these people being radicalised in the first place, and coming down hard on their religion is going to be counterproductive at best. We also need good intelligence. Increased security at the point of detonation (if you want to call it that) is pointless because there's just too much to protect, and in order to do that you'll have to reduce a lot of the freedoms we (should) hold dear. The fact that these ****ers were shot within 10 minutes is probably not bad (I mean no disrespect to those that lost their lives). Also not heard much made of them wearing fake bomb vests. I am assuming that is to ensure they go killed. If you think someone could detonate you aren't going to shoot to wound them. The authorities might have to think about that.
It's a weird argument because you could just as easily argue that if guns were more readily available in this country then a lot more innocents would have been killed. Unless he is suggested that if some "passers by" were armed they would have sorted it out, which is patently not the case from what we've seen of recent attacks in the States.
That's genuinely one of the arguments: please log in to view this image please log in to view this image "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LePierre, please log in to view this image NRA Executive Vice President. There's normally around 58 murders from firearms per year in the UK. The US figure is around 8,775. That's not including suicides, accidents and the like. That's quite a lot of bad guys, isn't it?
Just what you'd want. The Gunfight at the OK Corral in central London!.. Complete with terrorists and Joe Public blasting away aimlessly at each other!..
The vitriolic social media attacks on Sadiq Khan are quite sickening. Misrepresentation on a massive scale for one simple reason: he's Muslim!! Fake news and certainly deliberately misinterpreted statements being used to drive an extreme racist agenda. Yes, in terms of our collective safety we face an uncertain future at the heart of which lies a twisted ideology specifically designed to destroy our way of life. But to follow a totalitarian fascist agenda can never be the solution, surely!
Speculation is that the reason they wore fake suicide vests is to dissuade anyone from getting too near to them and stop them from stabbing etc.
May decides to attack the internet for 'giving them space to plan' and wishes to control it. Meantime her and her ilk will continue to support and supply Saudi Arabia.
Following my comment above I am pleased to see that Owen Jones has just highlighted the same point. It is only at times like this that I pay any attention to the media or the BBC and as usual I am appalled by their fawning government line when reporting. It reminds me of Pravda.
