Gandy, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few who have contributed to this thread still believe that the Birmingham 6, the Guildford 4, and the Maguire 7 were guilty of the crimes that they were charged with, even though the convictions were overturned...
Read the whole article: "But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris." I think the strictly necessary bit is fairly important. Remember the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by the Met police?
After Bloody Sunday I had no doubt who the guilty party was. The long history of attempted subjugation by the British of Ireland was the cause of "The Troubles" so I am probably in total agreement with Corbyn thus far. Islamic terrorism is different, the Irish sought equality not total domination and their freedom fighters fought to expel an occupying foreign army. The Good Friday agreement proved that a deal on very reasonable terms was possible, although Thatcher fought tooth and nail to keep the war going. ISIS, or Daish are an entirely different stripe, they don't care if they die and pussyfooting around with them as Jezza suggests isn't going to have a good outcome at all.
Thank you Welly and China for a bit of context to this story If anyone is interested in reading everything that the man himself actually had to say on the issue, rather than just grabbing the cut and paste snippets of propaganda from the anti-Corbyn media then is what he actually had to say: "Tonight, I will be going to the England vs France match at Wembley stadium. It is important we show solidarity with all those affected by the tragic events that took place in Paris on Friday. It is right that we are reflecting on the appalling attacks in Paris and how we agree an effective international response. That needs to focus on negotiating a comprehensive settlement of the Syrian civil war through the United Nations, which is the only way to end the threat from ISIS. That is the serious challenge facing us all. I am therefore disappointed that comments I made yesterday in regard to a "shoot to kill" policy have been taken out of context and have distracted from this discussion. Nonetheless, I would like to clarify my position. As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend. But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris." Doesn't sound quite so unreasonable when you read it all does it? And all nicely understated and without the song and dance performance from Cameron and the gang. As has been mentioned above, how well did shoot to kill go during the Stockwell calamity, and remind me how did things turn out even after Mark Duggan? (yes the guy was a scumbag, but when you've witnessed the consequences of the fallout from that incident you perhaps have to ask the question as to whether or not it was worth it and whether or not it could have been handled much, much better by incapacitating rather than killing him?) And do people really realistically envisage a situation where some hero with a sniper rifle takes out a terrorist saving innocent lives? Do people think this a job for Chuck Norris? I'd say the way we avoided making martyrs out of the murderers of Lee Rigby was the right decision, let the ****ers rot in jail rather than giving them the way out that they want
Don't you think Cameron is actually secretly enjoying all this? As you and I well know, wars win votes and elections for unpopular prime ministers, he's absolutely desperate for us to invade Syria, wouldn't do any harm to his arms trading either. No doubt you probably agree with him as well and would suggest we follow the path of good old Tony in 2003, the thing that perpetuated all this in the first place if you don't remember.
Of course he is enjoying it, who wouldn't when your main opponent insisted in slipping his own neck repeatedly into the noose. But that isn't Cameron's fault, he is just being opportunist. I know and completely understand the Corbyn type. They have a hard left agenda transported directly from the streets of Paris in 1968. We were all fellow travellers at that time but the vast majority of us grew up and realised what the policies of the hard left would lead to. I personally knew one of the disqualified Lambeth councillors from the 1980's. He was a total fruit cake who subsequently used his notoriety to gain a well paid job with the Labour Party. Basically he never turned up and several months later fought an unfair dismissal claim, despite admitting that he never turned up. The hard left supported him to the hilt and I think he ended up with quite a lot of money.
You seem confused, just the other day it was post-war Eastern Europe you were comparing him with, what next - the Bolsheviks? And I still don't understand why despite being well aware of the media traps that are being set for him, you appear to be choosing to take their side for some reason and helping with their dirty campaign by buying into it. Perhaps there is something in the saying that the older you get, the more conservative you get. I personally have gone the other way and have become far more political as I grow older, growing up in Broadland country, leading a fairly blinkered existence regarding politics as a young un, and in a family of conservative voters my if I could have voted as a teenager I probably would have voted blue. However the first time I got to vote was in '97, when as a 20 year old student I had seen the world a bit and opened eyes massively and I had moved my personal political persuasion to the left and bought in to New Labour as a young, impressionable voter like so many of us did. And I don't regret it either, voted Labour again in 2002 as I still believed in Blair then, he lost my vote after 2003 though and I went Liberal the two elections after that, but now I'm firmly behind Labour, so I've definitely moved further left with age and, dare I say it, wisdom. Oh right, I didn't know all that, now that I am privy to such topical and relevant information I don't know how I could possibly support Jeremy Corbyn (the MP who climed the lowest amount of expenses during the last five years) any more, thanks for the heads up
TMC as previously posted I don't think that anyone is criticising JC for his principles, however he is currently undermining himself by handing the media a baseball bat and asking to be beaten with it by shooting from the hip and saying whatever is in his head at the time however morally justifiable he feels it is. I think it is a bit disingenuous to compare the DeMenzes shooting with the Paris attacks - I don't think many reasonable people would argue that it is right to shoot people if we don't know for sure that they are armed and dangerous but as previously posted someone running down Magdelene Street with an AK47 shooting indiscriminately probably will only be stopped by terminal force. Much like the "Why you must vote Tory..." thread it would appear that people are quoting ever more extreme items to attempt to prove a point in, what would seem to be an increasingly aggressive manner. I would have thought that given the events in Paris most people would be somewhere in the middle ground. Is anyone on here suggesting that shooting unarmed Brazillians is correct or that suicide bombers with AK47's and a death wish can be talked down? Probably not. Did JC make a media gaffe which he and the Labour party have tried to correct subsequently? Yes he did. All these aggressive exchanges just feel like point scoring carried over from other threads which seems to be one of the reasons people are giving on up this site.
The unrest in Syria and neighbouring countries certainly does appear to have happened in the last few years - or ever since Tony became Bush's puppet!!! I would also agree that DC is itching to up the ante against Syria and thus improve his popularity (hopefully!!!)
Having read through all of this, I think the issue has become somewhat blurred. IMO, if you adopt a 'shoot to kill' policy you have allowed the terrorists to determine your policy and claim a victory. We didn't adopt a 'shoot to kill' policy after the IRA bombings or the London bombings by terrorists or the Lee Rigsby atrocity, so why is it necessary now? The murder of Jean Charles de Menezes by the Met police is relevant, because once you authorise a 'shoot to kill' policy innocent people are in danger from both the terrorists and the police. The police claimed they 'thought' Menezes had a weapon. With a 'shoot to kill' policy that is all that is needed. Do we really want to go the way of America? For that reason I agree with the statement: "there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot to kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend. But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris." IMO, "proportionate and strictly necessary force" has always been the British way and is what it should be.
But are they really? Who has stopped posting because of the political debate? Nobody as far as I can see, please correct me if I'm wrong. And hang on a minute, I didn't create this anti-Corbyn thread, and I didn't post at all on the first page which was full of anti-Corbyn rhetoric and propaganda based on yet another Tory media article misquoting him and taking him out of context - with the emphasis very firmly on the "yet again". As soon as I raise my opposing views, based on the actual words of the man himself, not via the right-wing media (that interestingly but not surprisingly none of the first page posters have commented on or argued against) I get shouted down. I've not had a pop at any of the Tory voters, I've raised some issues with CT, who I thought was on my side, and I'm sure he won't mind me saying is big and old enough to look after himself on here, so I think you're being a bit OTT if you ask me, didn't see the need for it personally and if that's the way this site is going to be going - with m me getting told off every time I get involved in the political debate by people who don't agree with me but aren't always able to actually argue properly against me without taking me out of context (a bit like you have by suggesting I'm directly comparing Stockwell with Paris - I'm talking about when the wrong man gets shot, where do you draw the line exactly? And Corbyn has never said not to kill a man running rife with a loaded weapon, do you really think he would put the lives of innocent civilians over a terrorist? I'm sorry if this sounds aggressive, but I fear it is you being disingenuous here my friend) then this site is going to get pretty boring for me pretty quick.
On the first point I totally agree, I cannot possibly see how anyone could be offended by this thread . It has largely been a debate between the two distinct parts of the Labour Party represented by Tony Blair and Jeremy Corbyn. Some of you may have guessed from my observations on Ireland that I an not a true right winger. (Incidentally Thatcher implemented a form of shoot to kill policy in Gibraltar with horrendous results in terms of reaction by IRA/INLA) My opposition to Corbyn is based on my reading of the situation.I think that he is heading for a wipeout that may see Labour achieve the worst election result for nearly a century. I don't know what the result will be but I keep meeting lifelong Labour supporters who cannot believe what he is doing and the ineptitude of his political posturing. Let's just see what happens in Oldham West a fortnight tomorrow. It is a rock solid Labour seat where Micheal meacher took 55% of the vote in May. they cant really lose the seat but I would not be surprised to see a crumbling of the Labour vote.
I really don't understand why this is even a debating point. Being against "shooting to kill" does not mean you are against "shooting"?? All he is saying is that if there is a terrorist, even their lives are worth something (particularly given the information we could get from them) so if you can shoot them to disarm/disable them rather than kill them, that's preferable. We should aim to kill, we should aim to stop them killing. That stands to reason. And the fact that it is impossible to shoot at someone without there being a very real risk of you killing them just serves to show that frankly this is a storm in a teacup
TMC - I respect your opinions and often enjoy your posts as they represent an alternate point of view to many others on here, mine included. I think that you would probably be the first to admit that on occasion you can come across as more of a keyboard warrior than you intend to, no doubt out of the passion you feel for the topic in hand. If your mind-set as expressed above is that balanced people like CT are either on your side or against you then I can understand why you can be confrontational - personally I don't see sides on the forum or even on a thread - we are all NCFC fans and we all have different opinions on certain matters. I may agree with you on some topics, CT and KIO on others and Kemp or the General on others but when we start taking sides then maybe its time to follow the new Twix advert and have a left NCFC forum set up parallel to a right NCFC forum. However the subject on this thread via the OP was correct n that it was the expressed view of JC at the time. Since stated there has been much back-pedalling by his colleagues in the PLP and he has felt the need to clarify his position. As I said in my earlier post he has a tendency to shoot from the hip and react as you or I may do were we having a conversation in the pub together rather than giving it a moments thought and then making his statement like the leader of the opposition. Had he given a clear explanation then this is not even a story but he is killing the opposition by feeding the right wing press sound bites to slaughter him with. He may well be honest and principled but as long as he keeps talking without thinking about how people will react to his words he is only going to make like easier and easier for the Government - I am not saying that this is right but it is just how it is in a 24 hour news world.
This is why Blair had Alistair Campbell. Corbyn's media management is non existent and he keeps providing own goals. You may well analyse what he says and think it quite unremarkable but when presented in raw form it does huge damage to his reputation. Now Livingstone is fighting with a Labour shadow minister too, it beggars belief.
2 points really. 1. Soldier's or police officers are not trained to stop / disable someone by shooting them (There are other non lethal weapons to do that). If someone is a threat to the extent that they need to be shot, then the only real option is shoot to kill and this would normally be done by firing two bullets at a time. There is no such thing as shoot to disable / disarm, this is just peoples expectations of what is possible being distorted by watching too much TV / films. 2. When someone is shot by a soldier / police officer they generally have only a fraction of a second to make that decision based on all the information available at the time. It is totally ridiculous and unfair on the shooter for a jury to take hours and often days to decide with the benefit of hindsight to judge whether the shooter's decision is right. There will be mistakes it is unavoidable.
