Jeremy Corbyn

[Deleted member 16999]

Not commented on this topic/bloke once because basically I never knew anything about him. Since he has become the leader of the opposition he has done nothing but rub me up the wrong way.

How this man has become leader of the opposition is beyond me.

His latest comments about "not happy about shoot to kill". Is he oblivious about what has gone off in Paris.

I would love him to explain what the alternative is.

Re his comments, " I would of prefered to capture Jihadi John". Does he think John was walking through a park.

If he carries on the Torys will be in for the next 10 yr

Similar opinion to yourself reference Corbyn and after your post I decided to search internet for the interview rather than comment blind, he did not say he's against "shoot to kill" he explained it should not be a blanket policy as he's against that, the same question was then asked to the PM whose spokesman said it is a decision for the guy on the ground and that is what Corbyn was saying, it should not be a blanket policy.
For me? It's a very dificult split second decision for the guy on the ground and unfortunately look how many members of the security services have been dragged through the courts when they've got it wrong.
As for Jihadi John, fantastic they got him, but there were family members of some of his victims interviewed saying they got no solace in his death and would of liked him brought to a court to stand trial and explain why he'd done it.
Still don't trust Corbyn, but trust the media less

 

[Old Skier]

Trouble with locking up terrorists is some political nut job decides to give them a get out of jail free card and a pardon in the end.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Trouble with locking up terrorists is some political nut job decides to give them a get out of jail free card and a pardon in the end.

If it's a terrorist, then I have no issue with a shoot to kill policy, difficult to explain that policy to the family of the brazilian bloke killed after the London Tube bombings.

 

[Tashyboy]

Similar opinion to yourself reference Corbyn and after your post I decided to search internet for the interview rather than comment blind, he did not say he's against "shoot to kill" he explained it should not be a blanket policy as he's against that, the same question was then asked to the PM whose spokesman said it is a decision for the guy on the ground and that is what Corbyn was saying, it should not be a blanket policy.
For me? It's a very dificult split second decision for the guy on the ground and unfortunately look how many members of the security services have been dragged through the courts when they've got it wrong.
As for Jihadi John, fantastic they got him, but there were family members of some of his victims interviewed saying they got no solace in his death and would of liked him brought to a court to stand trial and explain why he'd done it.
Still don't trust Corbyn, but trust the media less

Whole heartedly agree with everything you have said, the problem is that at some stage someone is going to be in a situation where they will " have to shoot to kill". Be it with a drone or a gun. Not suggesting at all that it is a blanket decision, but each and every scenario is differant.
It is not just the last couple days that have rubbed me up. The chief of defence spoke of his support for trident. this upset JC. Why ? Just because he does not agree with it.
If someone who works in a specific business is not allowed to voice an opinion on that business then we are screwed.
Not all bad news though, thanks for the help with me literature Ethan 👍

 

[Tashyboy]

Trouble with locking up terrorists is some political nut job decides to give them a get out of jail free card and a pardon in the end.

Caught up with an old friend and his wife a couple of months ago and and a good meal out with them. Him and his wife are both prison officers over 20 yrs each.
They have both said that prisons are becoming a breeding ground for religious extremism.

 

[Old Skier]

If it's a terrorist, then I have no issue with a shoot to kill policy, difficult to explain that policy to the family of the brazilian bloke killed after the London Tube bombings.

When people and guns are involved things like this will happen. Unfortunate but true.

Give a doctor a scrapple and occasionally they will cut the wrong bit.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Similar opinion to yourself reference Corbyn and after your post I decided to search internet for the interview rather than comment blind, he did not say he's against "shoot to kill" he explained it should not be a blanket policy as he's against that, the same question was then asked to the PM whose spokesman said it is a decision for the guy on the ground and that is what Corbyn was saying, it should not be a blanket policy.

Have you got a link to his full interview? I've tried googling it but can only find his comment that he's "not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general" and a couple of other selected quotes and would like to hear/read what he actually said before making further comment it.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

When people and guns are involved things like this will happen. Unfortunate but true.

Give a doctor a scrapple and occasionally they will cut the wrong bit.

Yes I'm sure that makes that innocent mans family feel so much better that their son was shot for no justifiable reason.

 

[Old Skier]

Yes I'm sure that makes that innocent mans family feel so much better that their son was shot for no justifiable reason.

I havnt said its right but when humans are involved these things will happen.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Have you got a link to his full interview? I've tried googling it but can only find his comment that he's "not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general" and a couple of other selected quotes and would like to hear/read what he actually said before making further comment it.

It's on the BBC News website, 9 minute long video.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Dear me, what a disgrace, Corbyn prefers proper justice, gathering intelligence from these people and a court trial rather than politically expedient quick kills. I thought the Tories were the law and order party. Guess not.

By the way, he didn't say 'I would OF ..' because he is literate, and that sentence makes no sense. He may have said 'I would HAVE ...'.

This^^^

 

[Crazyface]

Caught up with an old friend and his wife a couple of months ago and and a good meal out with them. Him and his wife are both prison officers over 20 yrs each.
They have both said that prisons are becoming a breeding ground for religious extremism.

How? Surely they are housed separately from proper criminals and played christian rock songs 24 hours a day, and made to go to christian bible readings. Have we no idea how to treat these bloomin' flippin' idiots?

 

[ColchesterFC]

Having watched the full interview I'm more concerned with his refusal to answer a question because it was hypothetical. Surely a large part of the Prime Minister's job is to be prepared for events that might happen. If he gets into number 10 is he going to refuse to prepare for a situation because until it happens it's all hypothetical.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Having watched the full interview I'm more concerned with his refusal to answer a question because it was hypothetical. Surely a large part of the Prime Minister's job is to be prepared for events that might happen. If he gets into number 10 is he going to refuse to prepare for a situation because until it happens it's all hypothetical.

The cynic in me says it's another example of the media trying to trip a Politician up,

 

[Ethan]

Having watched the full interview I'm more concerned with his refusal to answer a question because it was hypothetical. Surely a large part of the Prime Minister's job is to be prepared for events that might happen. If he gets into number 10 is he going to refuse to prepare for a situation because until it happens it's all hypothetical.

Sounds like an uncommon streak of common sense.

 

[Fish]

Dear me, what a disgrace, Corbyn prefers proper justice, gathering intelligence from these people and a court trial rather than politically expedient quick kills. I thought the Tories were the law and order party. Guess not.

By the way, he didn't say 'I would OF ..' because he is literate, and that sentence makes no sense. He may have said 'I would HAVE ...'.

This^^^

So are you both saying your against the air strikes and bombing of their training camps and HQ and you'd rather observe them after they've been trained and track them until they are about to commit a terrorist act and then catch them at it & prosecute them through the courts?

 

[Ethan]

So are you both saying your against the air strikes and bombing of their training camps and HQ and you'd rather observe them after they've been trained and track them until they are about to commit a terrorist act and then catch them at it & prosecute them through the courts?

Did I say that? Where?

Democratic and moral authority rest on the rule of law and administration of justice. It is therefore preferable to detain and prosecute people rather than summarily bomb or drone them. Sometimes it isn't possible to do the former, but sometimes it is just politically expedient to drone them and avoid questions and answers.

Nobody here weeps any tears for this waste of oxygen, but the drone hit him and he probably didn't even know about it. Would it not be better, if possible, to arrest him, drag him back for trial and then throw him in a tin box for the duration?

 

[Foxholer]

How? Surely they are housed separately from proper criminals and played christian rock songs 24 hours a day, and made to go to christian bible readings. Have we no idea how to treat these bloomin' flippin' idiots?

That would certainly turn most into 'zealots'!

I'd have been happy to 'shoot to kill' when sited too near a mosque for a few days many year ago!

 

[freddielong]

Did I say that? Where?

Democratic and moral authority rest on the rule of law and administration of justice. It is therefore preferable to detain and prosecute people rather than summarily bomb or drone them. Sometimes it isn't possible to do the former, but sometimes it is just politically expedient to drone them and avoid questions and answers.

Nobody here weeps any tears for this waste of oxygen, but the drone hit him and he probably didn't even know about it. Would it not be better, if possible, to arrest him, drag him back for trial and then throw him in a tin box for the duration?

And risk the lives of our soldiers, just blow him to bits with a drone, hopefully take out a handful or two of his mates and be done with it.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Sounds like an uncommon streak of common sense.

If he is going to refuse to answer hypothetical questions how can his party ever get elected? "So what will you do about the NHS if you get elected?" "I'm sorry I can't answer that as it's hypothetical".

Or do you support his right to only answer questions he wants to answer and refuse to answer the more difficult ones?