UKC

Corbyn might be forgiven for feeling a bit paranoid recently. As the subject of relentless media attacks since he became Labour leader he might well think someone out there's got it in for him but part of the skill of leadership is knowing how to stop yourself becoming the story, knowing that when you're in a hole you need to stop digging.

But no, in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks he tells us he's not happy with the police adopting a shoot to kill policy in the event of a terrorist attack over here. He'd prefer to "have security that prevents people firing off weapons".
Well no sh*t Jezza, wouldn't we all, but when faced with a theatre full of people being gunned down what exactly does that policy look like?
Perhaps he has some remarkable insight into the mindset of terrorists he can bring to bear on this one that nobody else has grasped? Who knows, he's spent enough time cosying up to terrorists in the past.

Now perhaps we've all just misunderstood him, perhaps in the event of an actual attack he would authorise lethal force, but in response to the very direct question

"as Prime Minister, would he authorise deadly force if there was a domestic terror attack".
to answer thus:-

“I’m not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general – I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often be counterproductive."

how the hell does he expect people to interpret his answer?

If it wasn't already a certainty I think we can say that today is the day that Labour lost the 2020 general election.

https://www.politicshome.com/home-affairs/articles/story/jeremy-corbyn-oppo...

In reply to pec:
I'm not happy with a shoot to kill policy, we don't need any more dead Brazilian sparkies.

In reply to pec:
Well, that's just like your opinion, man.

In reply to pec:
from what i have read he was just arguing that the rules shouldn't change from the current policy. That the police have to justify the use of deadly force, not hard to do in the situation described, at least he answered the question Cameron just dodged it.

In reply to pec:

I may be wrong - but I don't think the PM gets to decide if deadly force is used.
It's a decision for the person holding the gun.

In reply to pec:

What answer could he give that wouldn't have the right wing press fitting him up as complacent or having supported summary execution?

Seems a reasonable answer to the question to me. Nobody sane would approve of a general shoot to kill policy where safe alternatives exist but he's not saying no, ultimately while ever lethal force isn't completely ruled out (which he isn't suggesting) it's an operational decision that doesn't require the PM's input.

I'm sure you'll enjoy plenty of 'days the Labour party lost the election' between now and 2020 whether they do or not.

jk

In reply to pec:

To be fair to him, I think he was trying to preface his answer by saying that, in general, he wasn't happy with a 'shoot to kill' policy (you have to understand how loaded a term this is, politically) and he he did go on to mumble a bit about 'ways of doing things', which was probably as specific as he's prepared to get about the operational necessity of actually shooting someone dead to protect the public.

But yes, he did come over as hopelessly other worldly. He seems to believe that if we could just have the Daesh leadership round for a cup of tea the whole silly misunderstanding could be sorted out.

In reply to joem:

When did Cameron do this? According to the Grauniad Corbyn's statment was in response to specific Downing Street instructions that "special forces take swift action to neutralise terrorists rather than to cordon and negotiate"

He said: £I£m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general £ I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counterproductive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can, there are various degrees of doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening, that£s got to be the priority.£

He is presumably aware that there are intensive efforts all the time to "prevent these things happening" and that the government has today announced a step change in the resources being spent on security. Obviously nobody is happy with a "shoot to kill policy in general".

So all he has done is made a bland statement fudging the issue. This is fine when he is a back bencher and serial complainer. Now that he is a potential PM the country now has a right to know how he might react to something like the Paris attacks. If he will adhere to the current system, which allows shoot to kill in specific situations he should say so. If he isn't then he should say so.

So much for his new honest politics.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Careful - they might think you're trying to get them to have sex with you.

In reply to pec:

I heard this on R4. The correspondent was asked, "Does this indicate that Jeremy Corbyn is very much out of touch with public opinion?"

Since when has public opinion been any sort of barometer of reason???

In reply to pec:

Let me make myself clear. We don't have a shoot to kill policy in anything other than life threatening situations at present and nobody is arguing for one now.
He was asked a very specific question.

"as Prime Minister, would he authorise deadly force if there was a domestic terror attack".

Just think about that for a moment. It means that if there are armed gunmen running amok on our streets killing people, would he if asked, authorise the use of lethal force.

Now as a said in my OP (just in case you didn't read that bit) I suspect he actually answered a different question with some bland platitude. But the skill of being a senior politician is knowing which questions to answer vaguely to give yourself wriggle room in future and which questions to answer clearly and unequivically and without a shadow of a doubt this is the latter. Its not like he even went on to qualify his woolly answer with a caveat along the lines of "of course in the event of an actual attack blah blah blah"

So how does he expect Joe Bloggs who doesn't digest the broadsheets to interpret his answer when they hear the headlines on Radio 1 Newsbeat because these are the people he needs to convince if he is to become PM and right now they want reassurance not bland platitudes.

The man has absolutely no political acumen whatsoever, he has broken the cardinal rule of politics by allowing himself to become the story, he's in a hole and he just can't see it.

In reply to Removed User:



Since when has being hopelessly out of touch with public opinion been a predictor of electoral success?

In reply to toad:


Are you really saying that because of one tragic mistake (whether through negligence or not) means we should never use lethal force against armed terrorists? If that's not what Corbyn meant he should have made that absolutely clear.

In reply to pec:

I thought Laura Kuenssberg was going to scream at him, to get a statement of intent.... But that would've been like shouting at Mr Steptoe....

In reply to pec:

Does anyone else find it worrying that we've got to a situation where the bulk of the popular press are acting as a propaganda machine for the party in government - presumably in the expectation of further influence over areas of government policy like press regulation - and now we're criticizing the leader of the opposition for failing to police his every utterance against any possibility that it might be deliberately misrepresented?

In reply to pec:


Oh I'm quite aware of that

In reply to pec:

Poor old Jezza. He really is utterly clueless isn't he? There comes a time when, if you aspire to win elections requiring tens of millions of votes as opposed to a couple of hundred thousand party members who are broadly on your side to start with, you really do have to act and speak like a politician who knows what he is doing. I'm not at all sure he is capable of that or even that he knows how to do it. It beggars belief that anyone can be in parliament as long as he has been and not understand that. His 'breath of fresh air/new brand of politics will only carry him so far, and it is not to Downing Street.

Ed failed because the public did not trust him with the economy. I don't think I would trust Jezza with the proverbial whelk stall.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Well if there's anyone who should be worried its Corbyn. The fact that he's oblivious to it is my whole point. I know he's the new messiah to a lot of the left, he's the first true left wing leader in a long time but that doesn't make him a good one, let alone a potential PM who can reach out to the wider public.

In reply to pec:

I thought he was saying that capture and justice through the law was preferable to a death sentence without a jury. I'm sure he would allow shoot-to-kill if life was under immediate threat.

In reply to pec:


Since when has your opinion been public opinion?

In reply to JIMBO:


Why are you sure? He was asked and failed to say that.

In reply to pec:

As with most of what JC is reported to have said, listening to what he actually said ,it seems reasonable , thought out and consistent with his long held views. Sad to say, one of the regular distorters of what he says is the BBC's new political editor Laura Kuensberg who seems to be trying to make a name for herself.

In reply to JIMBO:

As mentioned up thread. There is a policy in place already which covers necessary force. The Shoot to Kill policy is just a naff media phrase as far as I can see. Maybe they should be asking the politicians better questions.

In reply to Postmanpat:

He can't say he would because he would instantly be accused of dropping his lifelong principals of justice through law.

In reply to JIMBO:


In two sentences you've said everything that Corbyn failed to in the interview. That's a perfectly reasonable response that I can't disagree with, and it's worrying that a career politician couldn't clearly make that point.

In reply to pec:

I am more interested if he wants to change his tune on Jihadi John being somehow extracted from Raqqa and bought to trial in the UK on unspecified charges.

In reply to JIMBO:


So he has to make a real life decision like serious leaders instead of self indulgent posturing.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What do you think the Tory press would do then?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sings like s Canary on Iranian Tv, Al Jazz, and Putins Russian Propaganda station....maybe he's worried he can't opine, without Seamus Milne, pulling his strings?

In reply to pec:

If there's anyone who should be worried it's people who like the idea of living in a functioning democracy where we elect politicians based on their policies rather than their media alliances.

Edit: I mean, it wouldn't even be that hard for them to shred JC based on his policies if they wanted to, but even opening up that debate would allow for the possibility that there might be an alternative to what the government are currently pushing through, and that possibility might in future be exploited by a more centrist Labour leader. So instead we get a non-stop parade of trumped up misquotation and misrepresentation, backed, if anyone points it out, up by smug pronouncements about how a proper leader wouldn't be susceptible to misquotation and misrepresentation.

In reply to Postmanpat:


trying to imagine a scenario where kalashnikov-armed terrorists are walking up oxford street slaughtering dozens, hundreds maybe, and Corbyn gives an order that lethal force should not be used to bring an end to the situation

failing

of course they would be shot, no matter who was the PM

so not really sure what the point of the question was, other than to elicit a response that could then be distorted and run as tomorrow's headlines.

will be interesting to see how this sort of repeated tactic plays; of course, many consider him only marginally more palatable as a potential PM than pol pot, but then the have made up their mind anyway. his appeal is as someone that isnt stage-managed and scripted to banality. The spectacle of large parts of the political journalistic body, including the bbc, trying to trip him up and twist his meaning will reinforce his own support of course; its unclear what it may do to the undecided potential supporter.

still think he's almost certain to lose, but paradoxically, the sort of treatment he's receiving may actually boost his chances- we don't like to see smart-arses bullying 'nice' people- there may be a sympathy vote for him (a rubbish reason for voting for a PM, but i'm sure many are...)

best wishes
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It's a bit chicken and egg though isn't it. If he gave sensible answers, no one would be able to trip him up. All this evasive nonsense is almost asking journalists to put leading questions to him. For example, Asked "are you going to kiss the Queen's hand?" he could reasonably have said, yes, or no. Instead he waffled about usual process or something.

In reply to JIMBO:


I think that's probably what he meant but as a direct response to the question he was actually asked that's not what he said. Read the link or find the interview online and listen to it, then ask yourself, how will Joe Bloggs (i.e. potential labour voter) interpret this when they hear a snapshot on a 30 second radio news bulletin?
As a potential PM he needs to be thinking along these lines, sad as that may be but that's how it works. How after 30 years in parliament he still doesn't understand this beggars belief.

In reply to WB:


When did I say it was? Read the thread, somebody else was quoting what the radio interviewer said about public opinion.

In reply to pec:

He's certainly not a canny political maneuverer. Which is a great pity, given that he's clearly a man of integrity that many can relate to. But it's looking more and more like he's putting his head in a noose. I think there's some very big confrontation with the PLP coming up tomorrow??

In reply to MG:


The biggest problem Jeremy Corbyn has, is being Jeremy Corbyn.

He plainly does not understand the game he has chosen to play.

There is a world of difference between the back benches and the front benches.

He needs to start learning how to play the game, or risk making Michael Foot look like a success story.

In reply to pec:

Much prefer his response to the question than a lie. We're not cutting Tax Credits anyone? Like my politicians to not have too much smarm and spin.

In reply to pec:


Well he has never really played in the court of public opinion (outside of the local papers i guess) so its not entirely difficult to figure out why he doesnt understand it.
"Shoot to kill" is one which would be tricky to answer since would need to establish whether it is the meaningless "if the police see someone as a clear threat then its ok to shoot them vs the claimed policy in NI.
First one is meaningless since shoot to wound is a fantasy and the second does have lots of issues which need addressing.

In reply to Goucho:


Disagree - the biggest problem that he has is that the majority of the press are acting like a less principled extension of the Conservative Party press office.

The second biggest problem he has is that said press have managed to convince everyone that that isn't his biggest problem and that if he was just a bit more "statesmanlike" it'd be all roses.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


So the entire UK media landscape is now Tory biased is it?


Well if he wants to be seriously considered as a future PM, then he needs to realise that being more 'statesman like' is part of the job spec.

At the moment he's coming across as a 2nd year uni student.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I get the impression he thinks he's the reincarnation of Ghandi.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

But surely its the job of the leader of the opposition to open up that debate, that's what he's paid for. If he had an ounce of media savvy he'd be doing just that. Instead he gives vague woolly anwers to everything and creates a field day for the media.
Yes we can all lament the days before the relentless scrutiny of every politicians utterance, but that's not the world we live in any more and Jeremy Corbyn can't bring it back. All credit to him if he wants to stick to his principles but he has to learn to handle the media without selling out and he's failing to do that in spectacular style.


They should have thought about that before they elected him


Listen to the interview yourself
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023
He's not being misquoted, he gives a vague answer to a very specific question which will inevitably be interpreted by many at face value, not "well what I think he means is......."

In reply to pec:

when you are dealing with an organisation with a track history of wearing suicide vests which they can trigger themselves in the blink of an eye, shoot to kill is the only policy that can potentially reduce the death toll. There is no time for negotiation with them.

If Corbyn hasn't grasped this, even after Paris(or the 100s of other suicide attacks around the world), then he doesn't even deserve to lead a party that loses the next election.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Exactly. I too would like to see politicians who weren't just slick PR spin merchants but they still have to be able to handle the media and understand how their message will come accross to ordinary voters, not just to political junkies such as us on here. As I said above, he's in a hole of his own making and he just keeps on digging. Love him or loathe him, he's not leadership material.

In reply to KevinD:


But as someone immersed in politics for all his lif he must have observed it and seen how it works.


Its not at all, you just say something like this
"its an operational decision for police on the ground"
or " obviously where there's an immediate threat to human life then regrettably we are left with no alternative"
That reassures the public, is largely a statement of fact, won't generate lurid headlines and is hard to misinterpret. Its a media savvy response without resorting to spin. Instead of which he's made himself tomorrow's headline.

In reply to joem:


Don't bring facts into it, have you taken leave of you senses!!!!

In reply to pec:


Unfortunately, what started out as potentially a breath of fresh air, could well end up a stale fart.

In reply to pec:

Interesting that all the focus is on what JC may or may not do or may or may not have said, yet our own elected leader seems to be as much use as a fast in a lift. How about not dealing with state sponsors of terrorism for starters?

But sitting back and letting the deflected attention stray elsewhere is probably lesson one in Spin City.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: despite what they claim Britain doesn't like integrity or politics based on conviction. It prefers career politicians , posturing and arm waving.

In reply to pec:

Yeah you are spot on Pec!!!!

Corbyn may as well admit he would fly a plane full of puppies in to Buckingham Palace on Christmas-f*cking-Day, whilst wearing a burqa and singing the Red Flag. The f*cking spineless commie.

<Rolls eyes>

In reply to wbo:


"Britain doesn't like"?, "It prefers"? That may be how you feel, don't pretend you speak for a country.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Mahatma Gandhi was one extremely fly operator. Positively worldly-wise in fact. Gandhi knew exactly how the British would react to his passive resistance policies and he devised and implemented them to devastating effect, gaining his objective as a result.

The key to success in conflict is to 'know your enemy' as Gandhi demonstrated. So, to address the point - "Is J.C. the equal of Gandhi?", you need to ask the question: "who is Corbyn's REAL enemy?"

In reply to pec:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but not having a Shoot-to-kill policy doesn't mean that a police officer who, for example, kills a terrorist to defend innocent civilians is going to be found guilty of any offence. Shoot-to-kill is not the same as the right to use lethal force if it's reasonable.

In other words, it's another deliberate misunderstanding by a right wing press that's utterly desperate to stop the public getting a fair account of Corbyn's views.

Compare and contrast for example:
http://newsthump.com/2015/11/16/jeremy-corbyn-went-to-the-toilet-in-the-aft...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11998459/Jeremy-Corb...
One is parody

In reply to pec:

Classic Jeremy corbyn nirvana fallacy.

'I'd rather live in a world where nuclear weapons don't exist'
'I'd like to balance the budget but not make anyone worse off'
Etc

No shit you moron, stop winning rhetorical points and get down to reality.

In reply to pec:


I really doubt anything would live up to actually being in the spotlight.


Apart from it isnt. "Shoot to kill" has some very unfortunate connections in UK politics. There was an entire inquiry related to it. So the first one becomes "police authorised to shoot suspects on sight".

In reply to Trevers:



That's what the right wing press do to a left wing leader.
Also what the left wing press do to a right wing leader.

I think it is known as journalism, each paper plays to its readership, get over it.

In reply to wbo:


I agree. It's very depressing.

In reply to Moley:

I predict Jeremy won't see out his first year of leadership. Right now it's probably more likely he'll be pushed rather than jump. He's clearly not cut out for the job of leading a credible opposition. Having said that I feel some sympathy towards him, even he didn't expect to win the leadership contest and right now I bet he wishes he didn't. It can't be much fun waking up every morning to the negative press he receives.

In reply to Moley:


I don't rate the Guardian as some epitome of journalism but they've never stooped so low.

In reply to Moley:



Is it?

"Journalism ethics and standards

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability — as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public"

In reply to pec:
Are there any 'shoot to...' alternatives?

Shoot to miss?
Shoot to really sting?
Shoot to chafe?
Shoot to smart a bit?
Shoot to make you duck?
Shoot to make you jump?
Shoot to really annoy?

There's either armed response from police - army etc which will kill people or there isn't. The whole idea of a 'shoot to kill' policy is surely a fantasty concoction from (or possibly for) people who think that people can be shot 'safely' or without the very significant possibility of causing the target to die.

In reply to pec:

Leaving Corbyn aside (which I think is wise)
In the event of a domestic terror attack on the lines of Paris or Mumbai, I would like to see a very swift shoot to kill policy with forces specifically trained to do so. Counterproductive would be to hesitate while more innocent, unarmed, uninvolved, unsuspecting ordinary folk are wilfully murdered by fanatical, uncompromising wilful murderers.

In reply to pec:

That's not a very accurate picture of the interview I just watched.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:










Precisely. Shoot to Kill was something coined by journalists around the time of the John Stalker enquiry. A pretty meaningless phrase.

Anyway, PIRA and other republican groups had an extremely prolific shoot to kill policy running for a number of years. Corbyn hasn't been overly quick to condemn that.

In reply to Ridge:


http://newsthump.com/2015/11/10/jeremy-corbyn-in-anti-monarchy-pro-isis-ira...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:





The point of the question is simple and valid. Corbyn's previous statements on State violence and his associations with terrorist organisations make it much less clear than it would be with a "mainstream" PM what his attitude to the use of lethal force against terrorists might be. He was therefore asked a specific and timely question to which the electorate has a right to a clear answer. It gave him a perfect chance to say that although as a general rule he abhors such violence there might be specific situations in which innocent lives were endangered when he accepted that it should be used (according to the conventions currently in force).

He chose not to say this so we are left not knowing what he actually thinks.

Whilst I agree that much of the press coverage about depth of the bow and singing the anthem etc is shite, this question is totally reasonable. Indeed it would have been a failure of the interviewer not to ask it. If he cannot give a clear answer he only has himself to blame if the media or the electorate draw their own conclusions.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't think it's as clear as you claim. As far as I'm aware, shoot-to-kill is not the same as the use of lethal force by the police when necessary if a terrorist situation occurs. So the question Corbyn answered is not the one that the public is being led to believe he was asked. His answer was moderate and sensible, with the caveat of 'in general'.

In reply to Trevers:


If that is the case he could have clarified his understanding of the terminology and clarified his answer accordingly. As it stands the answer isn't "moderate".
Its an obfuscation.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It is, but not by Corbyn.

Edit - Actually, it probably is by both Corbyn and the media. On Corbyn's part, it's clear he's against a 'shoot-to-kill' policy, and doesn't want to be drawn into commenting on hypothetical situations where he wouldn't be calling the shots anyway, so what's the point.

And it's obfuscation by the media because that's just what they do.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I agree, a whelk stall might just be pushing the boundaries of this guys grasp on reality.

In reply to Trevers:


Meaning? That doesn't change the reality. The only 'credit' I can give Corbyn is that, unlike McDonnel, he hasn't publicly stated he approved of the PIRA campaign. He's weaselled around the issue. I don't give a shit about the depth of a bow or kissing the Queen, but perhaps this "conviction and integrity" politician might care to give a statement one way or another?

In reply to Shani:


at least we know if he kidnaps one of her corgies to try and get her to leave that he is bluffing, he couldn't pull the trigger. But, also the whole world knows he lacks back bone and if he was PM they could ride rough shod where ever they like and Corbyn would probably only send them a strongly worded letter via Frank of Manchester or some other made up name/place.

In reply to Trevers:




In which case ,where is the media obfuscation? You believe that Corbyn has said he is against a shoot to kill policy and the media has teported that Corbyn is against a shoot to kill policy.

In reply to Trevers:



The problem isn't a misunderstanding by the press, right-wing or otherwise; it's Corbyn's complete misunderstanding of the reason he was asked the question. It wasn't an opportunity to restate his (admirable) credentials on questioning what might or might not have been a covert policy in Northern Ireland decades ago.

What the situation demanded was a simple, clear statement that, faced with a terrorist emergency, he would of course immediately ensure that anything deemed operationally necessary was done to protect the population, including lethal force if necessary. It was an excellent opportunity for him to appear decisive and responsible in a way that would be very difficult for even his most pacifist supporters to object to.

The fact that he thought the context of the question could possibly have been anything other than a scenario such as what has just happened in Paris shows how detached from reality he is.

I was initially quite pleased that Corbyn won the leadership, since I thought that anyone new would be better than the stale, second-rate, usual suspects who expected to win. I was wrong. Maybe he'll accelerate a complete regeneration of the party in a desperate existential effort to get rid of him, but they'd better get a move on.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I sort of agree. But perhaps many of the current problems we now face were the result of politicians being rather too decisive and responsible too quickly. I see France are going down a road that will play directly into the hands of their foes. Of course the media / public won't understand this point because they are reacting emotionally rather than rationally.

In reply to ByEek:


I don't see how putting the country into lockdown while they catch up on their intelligence and try to arrest more suspects is playing into their hands. If those involved are allowed to flee, they are highly likely to repeat the event elsewhere, they don't appear to be the drift into happy retirement type.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Agree. It's like he thought he was being asked a philosophical question and doesn't realise the public (and even very few of his supporters) didn't want to hear him think out loud about what he was or wasn't 'happy' with. Listening to the interview, I don't think he said anything too controversial, but his failure to realise how it would come across when interpreted as a soundbite just shows massive naivety.

In reply to Postmanpat:


What is a 'shoot to kill' policy?

Who does the shooting? And in what circumstances? And how is that different from the current situation?

The answers to those questions would indeed be interesting; but wouldn't lend themselves to sound bites that coud be run as headlines the following day

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Shooting has always been shoot to kill. Shots aren't fired unless life is threatened etc.. No warning shots etc.. either.

Shoot to wound was 'allegedly' used by a few units in the past where they may want a prisoner for information etc.. but that was in a different war when the baddies weren't wearing suicide vest etc..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


If you are a politician, especially of the left, it means this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland

The fact that Corbyn could only think of this is his problem.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Corbyn just needs to actually get into politics and leadership, I think he has spent so long being a bit wishy washy on the back benches, he isn't able to, or can't get fluent and current. It's a bit like PMQs, he should be up to speed and sharp, asking his own questions that are current for the day, with the facts in his head ready for a sharp reply.

Even if the shoot to kill policy question was a general one, he should have framed it in a Paris context, given the fact that everything in the news is Paris related and said something positive & decisive, on which ever side of the fence he wants to be, but not sit on it.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




Its really not difficult. Hilary Benn did it this morning "there are specific situations when innocent lives are being clearly threatened that I would accept the use of a shoot to kill policy. That is current Labour party policy and government policy"

It would then be perfectly legitimate to refuse to discuss specific situations. I really dont understand why his defenders dont think he should say that.

In reply to summo:

For me, that is why it is a shame he isn't 36 rather than 66. He has a bit too much history in him.

In reply to summo:


How would the whole world 'ride rough shod where ever they like'? Other countries and entities therein are bound by statutory frameworks and legal obligations that limit and control military, political and economic activity. (I also note that other countries have rather passive leaders - like Michael D Higgins in Ireland - and I don't think that that has resulted in Ireland being 'ridden rough shod.')

So agian, how would the whole world 'ride rough shod where ever they like'?

In reply to summo:


Depends on the kind of rounds used actually.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know either- because, as I said above, faced with the sort of scenario that unfolded in Paris on Friday, does anyone really think he would issue an order forbidding the use of lethal force?

I wonder if he thought it was so self-evident that he would accept there were situations where 'shooting to kill' was needed that he over complicated the issue by moving on to mor contentious uses of the term.

And you are entirely correct; his presentation is poor and will cost him votes. But the unknown is the other side of the equation- how may people, currently alienated from mainstream politics, will support him for precisely the reasons that you dismiss him ie that he talks like a real person, that he tries (and often fails) to communicate complexity, that he has real beliefs rather than ones assembled by focus group (or at least appears to), and that he doesn't have a carefully crafted sound bite answer to every question put to him.

And how much will this give him a 'Teflon coating' against otherwise career-ending gaffes, in the way that farage and boris appear to have?

Given that around 30% of the population consistently don't vote in elections, if he can tap into that group, he may yet pose a threat to the orthodoxy. I still think its unlikely, but the next elections will be interesting and he should have til after then to see if he gets any traction with those that never vote, or stopped voting.

And in the meantime, I think its missing the point to criticise him for not being polished enough as a performer; if he becomes that, he loses the only thing that gives him a chance, and becomes just another Westminster politician, and not a very good one either

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Dave Garnett:


The question posed was (quoted fully and directly):
"If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people, police or the military, to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"

That's the question he was responding to.

'During a terrorist attack' was not mentioned and it's disingenuous to suggest it was obviously implied. Let's not forget Jean Charles de Menezes was shot during what wasn't a terrorist attack. Compare that with the admirable police response to Lee Rigby's killers.

The Telegraph is reporting it as:
"Jeremy Corbyn: I'm 'not happy' with shoot-to-kill policy if terrorists are attacking Britain"
So they've changed the context of the question basically.

In reply to Postmanpat:


See my response to Dave Garnett

In reply to Trevers:

The question posed was (quoted fully and directly):
"If you were prime minister, would you be happy to order people, police or the military, to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?"

That's the question he was responding to.

'During a terrorist attack' was not mentioned and it's disingenuous to suggest it was obviously implied. Let's not forget Jean Charles de Menezes was shot during what wasn't a terrorist attack. Compare that with the admirable police response to Lee Rigby's killers.


A question asked in the aftermath of what happened in Paris.
Corbyn would have to be spectacularly stupid not to link the two and answer accordingly!

In reply to summo:


Lockdown ultimately inconveniences ordinary people from going about their normal business. And thus grows the resentment towards moderate Muslims as well as the extremists and with it the gap between social groups. The resentment of minority groups in France and Paris in particular is well documented and further resentment towards them with its increased isolation is just what ISIS needs in order to recruit. When society has nothing to offer you, you naturally go elsewhere.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Personally I'd much rather hear someone's reasoning than the latest polished nugget from the policy unit. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see Cameron give us some real insight into his thoughts rather than endless dissembling. Why we're clamoring for Corbyn to become yet another greasy robot while bemoaning the fact our political classes are almost exclusively made up of greasy robots I have no idea. Vive la difference.

jk

In reply to FactorXXX:



Shoot to kill includes giving the order to pre-empetively shoot a suspect before an attack is carried out. Therefore, just because the question is asked in the aftermath of an attack, it still doesn't imply the context of 'during an unfolding terrorist attack'. The shoot-to-kill policy which resulted in the death of de Menezes was enacted in the aftermath of a failed bombing attempt.

In reply to pec:

He answered half the interview correctly by saying that bombing ISIS in Syra is not going to solve the issue. Its hardly rocket science this, ever man and his /her dog knows that a political solution is the way forward.

But he looked to me vexed by this question of " shoot to kill". It was an unbelievable answer considering that his " advisers" should now be preparing him for these type of media questions. He could easily have said we want to avoid another Mendes shooting, but in the event of another Paris style attack he would have no issues following agreed procedures.That I could accept. Instead he came across as somebody who thought that the French police should have arrested these guys with a polite tap on the shoulder.

In reply to Trevers:

Unfortunately you have been selective in your memory of the interview

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34832023

Second video down....7m 55s minutes in. Clearly the question is framed by the Paris attacks

In reply to Trevers:

it still doesn't imply the context of 'during an unfolding terrorist attack'.

Two days after the biggest terror attack ever seen in France of course it bloody well does. Don't be ridiculous.

In reply to jkarran:


I agree in principle, but it's not you or I he really needs to impress and there is an area between stubborn idealist and empty suit. People need to be brought towards his position gradually and that's not going to happen if he's so unaware (and I do think it's unaware rather than uninterested) of how every ambiguity in what he says is going to be exploited by an unscrupulous press.

In reply to Shani:


oh, do enlighten me?

In reply to Trevers:




If Corbyn didn't understand that the question embraced the possibility that such a policy might be appropriate in the context of a Paris style attack then words fail me. They fail me that you should think he is so naive not to recognise this. I like Dave Garnett's suggestion that he is still thinking in the context of the context of NI. This in itself suggests a lack of appreciation of the issues at stake that is quite disturbing.

This is not primarily about presentation, although his incompetence at that is striking. It is about a failure address and apparently to understand, the issues. He is a bit like the man being asked the way to Limerick and replying that "I wouldn't start from here". Corbyn has to understand that, like every leader, he cannot choose where he starts from so it's no good saying that he prefer to discuss things, or was against invading Iraq, etc etc. We have a right to know and he has a duty to tell us, how his views would influence his policies as PM.

In reply to Postmanpat: "If Corbyn didn't understand that the question embraced the possibility that such a policy might be appropriate in the context of a Paris style attack then words fail me."

See my post a couple up and the video clip. He definitely knew the context. Trevers is just being obtuse because his big hope is taking a kicking

In reply to summo:

oh, do enlighten me?

I suppose you could use rubber/plastic/baton rounds...

In reply to pec:
I am pretty sure that a terrorist walking down the street , who has an AK47 pointing at the ground and not about to shoot someone, would under the old engagement rules not be shot by armed response. They would cordon and negotiate even if the terrorist had hostages.

That is up to the point they pointed the weapon at someone and they believed they or a member of the public was in imminent danger.

I am not sure if that is also true if the terrorist had previously discharged their gun and killed people, but i expect it was the case as plenty of killers have done exactly that in the past. I don't believe that just because you have killed someone that automatically means that the police can just shoot you unless there is a current imminent threat to life.

Basically I take the comments from the government to be the assumption is for these sort of terror attacks everyone is by default in imminent danger forget all the niceties and just shoot them in the head.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Very little. People like Boris and those that like Farage like him very much (he is not trying to appeal to those that have a knee-jerk hatred for him as they will never change their views anyway). No-one other than a few thousand university Trots and stupid mask-wearing, ruck-at-demo-causing rowdies like Corbyn and most of them think it is too "bourgeois" or "neo-Liberal" to vote anyway.


No good reason to think that non-voters split much different to voters, nor is there anything to suggest that Corbyn will motivate them to vote at all, still less specifically for him. Their main defining feature is that they do not vote and mostly never will, due to ignorance, indifference or whatever cause, but whatever the cause is, it is unlikely to vanish soon. As for the "sympathy vote", that doesn't survive the privacy of the ballot box, if it even gets remotely close to that - when push comes to shove, people prefer a bastard as PM provided he is a reasonably competent bastard, to a well-meaning buffoon with his head in the clouds.

Corbyn says stuff like..."I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," which is the kind of wishy washy statement that means he will never be taken seriously as a leader due to lack of conviction. The press annihilation of him is unfair and unnecessary as hypothesizing what he would or would not do as prime minister is a waste of time as he will never be the leader of this country.

In reply to FactorXXX:

and replace them with batteries?

They aren't just people who are rioting your dealing with, they'll happily kill thousands of people and you want to just stun them a little with plastic bullets? Is that really what you want the police to be using if you or your family were ever in such and unfortunate position?(or anyone else in the UK for that matter).

In reply to Shani:

Because if Corbyn was ever PM (however unlikely), then Spain would take Gib back, Argentina would move into the Falklands and so forth. The minute they thought there would be no action, other countries would have nothing to lose. Corbyn would say he is willing to talk, to solve all problems, but in PMQs has shown he can't debate or negotiate at all, he isn't even a one trick pony, I just don't see a single strength in him. He also has an extremely low perception of the context of conversations, as shown yesterday.

Ireland isn't really involved in anything to be ridden over, it's a dead dog of the EU.

In reply to DrIan:

If a terrorist is walking down the street holding an AK47 no matter where it's pointing, I think it's fair to assume he isn't on his way to get some milk and tea bags?

So shooting him would seem to me an entirely sensible course of action, rather than waiting for him to actually fire his AK47 at innocent people.

And if he's also wearing a suicide vest, then it should also be a head shot.

In reply to summo:


riot rounds, plastic/rubber bullets, .22 (according to one country).
Less likely to kill although still a possibility. Whereas if you use a normal firearm then the chances of killing has to be rated as high. Which is why the use of "shoot to kill" is an oxymoron. Unless its either used to mean the claimed approach in NI or using finishing shots as well.

In agreement with most here.

Not listened back so this might not be precise, but that is the point; most people won't listen back to pick up subtleties.

When I heard the BBC PM headline of "Corbyn wouldn't authorise deadly force" I immediately thought that he's now lost credibility with large swathes of the population but I'll bet that wasn't his actual answer.

Low and behold, when playing snippets of the interview, that question comes out, "would you be happy to ......." to which the answer IIRC was "I wouldn't be happy to..... but"

I'm a big fan of politicians answering the question they were asked instead of giving out their prepared soundbite, but the error here was answering the exact question i.e. would you be happy? Of course you won't be happy, no-one should be; but as stated above many times, you need a better answer Jeremy.

I'm in broad agreement with most Corbyn policies, values, ideals but he'd be a poor PM. My hope is that he's an excellent opposition leader, creating debate and getting people thinking about alternatives enough that good politics becomes a bit more than just, well, good politicking.

In reply to KevinD:


riot stuff, is that really appropriate for an AK47 carrying person with a explosive vest?
22 is waste of time, a person all fired up could keeping functioning after a few shots, unless hit in a critical part of the body. 0.22 has very very little stopping power.


But why, if you have a people like in paris, why would not want to simply stop them in their tracks, instantly?

In reply to summo:

hey aren't just people who are rioting your dealing with, they'll happily kill thousands of people and you want to just stun them a little with plastic bullets? Is that really what you want the police to be using if you or your family were ever in such and unfortunate position?

Steady on!
I was just saying what the alternative was to normal rounds.
As far as I'm concerned, any terrorists are viable targets and that includes taking preemptive action.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Sorry, I was replying the context of 'shani' who said they could be shot with different rounds which wouldn't kill them.

In reply to summo:

The more gung-ho types on here should remember that 'shoot to kill' was an alleged policy in NI under which suspects were alleged to have been deliberately killed without any attempt to arrest them.

Fundamentally shoot to kill of alleged suspects is a terrible idea.

Now the law does recognise and facilitate 'lethal force' if appropriate. Anyone, including police officers, may use reasonable force as they see fit, in a given situation, in self-defence, defence of another, to defend property, to prevent a crime. or lawful arrest. The force must be proportionate to the perceived threat and a jury will reflect upon 'heat of the moment' stressors.

I don't believe Corbyn said anything to the contrary about the use of lethal force in these circumstances.

In reply to summo:


You clumsily generalised with the assertion "Shooting has always been shoot to kill." I was pointing out that this is quite wrong and that both the army and police have used non-lethal rounds dependent on the situation.

In reply to Parrys_apprentice:

Any opposition leader that is not at least plausible as a PM, or seems to have no realistic chance of becoming PM cannot be a good opposition leader. The main job of opposition leader is to provide a realistic threat of loss of office to the existing government, not to act like a student politician, carping on the sidelines by spouting what sound to them like convincing slogans.

Leaving aside that all Corbyn seems to have is the vacuous and largely anti-British high-sounding generalities that have not changed in any of his 32 years in parliament, he poses no serious challenge to Cameron, which is why Cameron is so relaxed at PMQs while Corbyn reads out "Marie from Brighton". And since no-one thinks that Cameron is perfect as PM, he certainly needs a challenge to keep him relatively honest, Corbyn is failing and will continue to fail to do this.

This is a problem for UK democracy, not just for left-wingers, because any government needs opposition. Surprisingly the main example of when this was well done recently was by Hilary Benn, with Osborne standing in for Cameron at PMQs. Given that everyone knows Osborne's ambitions, it was supposed to be a moment of triumph for him. Benn was polite, factual and asked sensible and important questions. Osborne was forced to rein in any triumphalism, to give sensible answers and genuinely address issues. Benn had changed the situation from riotous knock-about to genuine calling the government to account. It is a feat that has very seldom been repeated in recent history.

Napoleon famously asked about a general "but is he lucky?". Cameron, first with Miliband and now massively more so with Corbyn has been massively lucky in his opponents, probably far more than he deserves.

In reply to summo:


No but that wasnt the question being posed. You said "shooting was always to kill" which Shani pointed out was incorrect. There are alternatives although ones that arent really viable in this sort of case.
Which is why the question was a crap one.

In reply to pec:

I did think this morning when revisiting this thread, that 'Corbyn Madness' sounded a bit like a wishy washy 'nutty boys' tribute act. Then I realised how apt some of their song titles actually were in this context.

In reply to MG:



The aftermath of terrorist attacks usually involve raids at the locations believed to be holding suspects. A shoot-to-kill policy could cover the order to gun them down, even if they're naked and asleep in bed, and thereby posing no immediate threat. That's very different from a rampaging terrorist firing indiscriminately on the streets, and both are applicable but different questions in the context of the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

In reply to Shani:




This is just disingenuous. It actually chimes with dave Garnett's suggestion that Corbyn was intellectually unable to understand that the question was not about the complexities of dealing with "suspects" in NI. It was about the reaction to a Paris style massacre. The men shooting in the Bataclan were not "alleged suspects". The were murders in the act of murdering. Why can Corbyn not say he accepts that in such a case a shoot to kill policy is accepted by the current laws and accepted by him??

Corbyn was given an open goal. He could clarify or reframe the question and give an open and honest reply. He sent it fifteen yards wide and didn't even realise it.

In reply to Shani:

If security forces are faced with a terrorist situation, then surely anything less than "shoot to kill" should be viewed as a failure by them.
The shooting should be as fast and lethal as is possible, if it isn't, the probable slaughter by the terrorists (probably of civilians) can continue - whether that is killing a last civilian or pushing a suicide bomb detonator before they die.

Personally I don't see what there is to discuss. If I was a member of the security forces I wouldn't be very bloody happy if I was sent out to face terrorists armed with AK47s and I only had rubber bullets, would you?

In reply to pec:

Your profile says you are 47, so you really should know better. Anyone who was paying attention in the 80s knows that "shoot to kill policy" is code for allowing undercover SAS to shoot suspects in the head as they walk down the street because arresting them looks too much like hard work.

Nobody who was politically active and to the left of Thatcher back then is going to endorse that, and it's just as stupid now.

As you seem to have forgotten: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Flavius

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


No, I'm outraged that the right wing papers are winning their dirty little game and context no longer matters. I'm outraged that people are happy for the bad guys to get it regardless of collateral (as in the other thread about Jihadi John). I'm outraged that, mirroring this, people are happy for the bad guy (Corbyn) to get it from the press no matter the collateral (to hell with context, objectivity, impartiality and accountability, so long as the public are led to hate him).

In reply to Trevers:


I think you're stretching the 'collateral' metaphor a bit (and I don't recall anyone saying they didn't care about it, even to take out Jihadi John) but I understand that you think the press isn't playing fair with Corbyn.

You might be right, but perhaps he shouldn't make it so bloody easy for them.

In reply to Moley:

No one is disputing this. Not even Corbyn. However shooting a terrorist is NOT 'Shoot to Kill'. 'Shoot to kill' was an alleged policy in NI under which suspects were alleged to have been deliberately killed without any attempt to arrest them. the words 'ALLEGED' and 'SUSPECT' are paramount here.


Yes. Correct.


No one is arguing for that. You need to reflect on what a policy of 'shoot to kill' means. It is a specific term to describe the execution of ALLEGED SUSPECTS, not terrorists (and certainly not terrorists in the act of killing). If you can identify an armed assailant who appears intent on killing then you are free to administer lethal force.

In reply to davidbeynon:


Ffs. Its not the 1980s. Its 2015.

Corbyn was given every opportunity to clarify when shoot to kill may be acceptable and when, as in the context you refer to, he does not believe it is. But he didnt.

In reply to Trevers:

OK, here's what Labours shadow foreign secretary (Hilary Benn) has to say:


PA

Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn has said it is "perfectly reasonable" for police to shoot to kill terrorists that are a threat to life - after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he was "not happy" with such a policy.

Mr Benn said it was a "long-established precedent" that lethal force could be used to prevent "further loss of life".

Mr Corbyn's stance was criticised by some MPs at a party meeting.

I don't think you need to worry about the press picking on Corbyn, his own party seem to be undermining his statements, can't blame the press (right or left wing) for having some sport at Corbyn's expense.

In reply to Ridge:

Spot on. There never was and isn't now a "short-to-kill' policy. It would actually be 'shoot to eliminate the threat', the most likely result being the death of the threat. AFIK the use of armed force to achieve a legal objective is controlled by a whole bunch of legislation, one being the Human Rights Act, plus obligations under the ECHR. So the police etc already have the legal framework to shoot a target if other means won't succeed. In the end it's down to the officer at the scene to decide what to do. So what's JC got to do with it? He'd need to start readdressing parts of the legal framework. Is the current furore simply the media baiting him to commit with answers to questions he's not comfortable with?

In any case the most effective means of anti-terrorism is intelligence, disruption and prevention.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Nah. He got a loaded question with a form of words that guaranteed it would be used against him him no matter what the answer.

For the record I don't think he's PM material either, but that's no reason to swallow this bullshit.

In reply to Trevers:


Corbyn isn't some young newbie, he's been in politics for over 30 years, and if he hasn't learnt how the game works by now, he never will, and just continue to make it as easy for the Tories and the media to take pot shots at him like shooting fish in a barrel.

In reply to Trevers:
objectivity, impartiality and accountability,

Newspapers don't particularly aim to be any of those things.

In reply to Trevers:

Disagree. The context doesn't matter TO YOU! apparently

The interviewer said "If we saw the kinds of horrors of Paris on the streets here...." before continuing with the shoot to kill question. I watched it live when broadcast and face palmed when I heard Corbyns response.

In reply to davidbeynon:

There's still multiple interpretations of 'shoot-to-kill' on this thread, so it's easy to see how it could lead to a number of responses. Corbyn should've asked for clarification of the question though.

In reply to Goucho:

Yes it does seem entirely sensible, but then United Kingdom law allows the use of "reasonable force" in order to make an arrest or prevent a crime or to defend one's self. However, if the force used is fatal, then the European Convention of Human Rights only allows "the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary". Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life".

Walking down the street with a gun isn't justification for the police to shoot you in law, you have to justify why there was an imminent threat to life. Pointing a gun at you or someone else counts, as does actively discharging it.

If they aren't actually doing that at the time the officer arrives on the scene then it gets a bit tricky legally and it is down to the individual officer who makes a decision to fatally shoot to justify his actions.

In reply to Simon4:



There seems to be an awful lot of personal opinion and supposition dressed up as fact I that, Simon.

For example, I think there are plenty of good reasons to think that non voters may split differently to voters. They may have never felt engaged by the largely on-message Oxbridge educated middle aged white males discussing variants of a consensus that they feel alienated from; someone who they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be outside that group and to be offering a different philosophy may engage, or re-engage, them with politics and general and voting in particular, and this group are likely to vote in patterns different from current voters

I suspect that this goes beyond a few professional demonstrators and trots, the numbers who voted for him seem too large for that

Does it go far enough beyond this constituency to have a serious shot at winning the election? I very much doubt it. For all my reservations over the approach the media are taking, he isn't performing well enough, and relying on a sympathy vote isn't good enough

But I'm prepared to wait to see how he does in an actual election campaign; and not only do I think he's good for politics, I think he's essential- the sort of social and economic views he promotes may well be impractical and wrong, but they are shared by a large chunk of the electorate- and if no party gives a platform for them to be expressed, then substantial parts of the country become alienated from mainstream politics, damaging democracy as a whole

Best wishes
Gregor

In reply to davidbeynon:

It was about as simple a question as any politician could be asked. He had every opportunity to reframe it, particularly to say "of course I wouldn't be happy". Has Hilary Benn been pilloried for his answer by the horrid right wing media like the Grauniad, BBC and Huffungton Post? Why could Corbyn not give Benn's answer, and if he thinks there are no circumstances where "shoot to kill" is acceptable, why does he not have the honesty to say so?

I'm the first to say our media can be pretty devious in its questioning and spinning, but this a third former could have dealt with this one.

In reply to Postmanpat:


In defence of my rather grubby trade I have to say it is usually necessary to ask very pointed questions to get an answer. We've all had a good chuckle at those HIGNFY clips which show a politician giving the same prepared answer to every question no matter what they are asked. They have their soundbite pre-scripted to get their message across and they know that if they keep saying the same words that is all the broadcaster can put out on the 10 o'clock news. An occasional bit of mockery on HIGNFY is a small price to pay.

Corbyn's problem on the other hand seems to be that he has no answer and why he had not prepared for that question is beyond me. If he'd run his respeonse past any competent advisor he'd have been told what was wrong with it and how to make it work. Instead he wanders off into some rose-tinted world where all this unpleasantness will be sorted out by sweet reason over a cup of tea and where heavily-armed jihadis deeply embedded in battle zones can be arrested, presumably by an unarmed WPC and a Community Support Officer in a panda car who would persuade them to 'come quietly' down to Dock Green for a chat. This is then dressed up by his supporters as 'honest' and 'thoughtful'. But outside his circle of supporters it is widely seen as just out of touch with reality. The'honesty' is in showing he is completely unsuited for high office, where principle is to be valued but so too is pragmatism.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


I dont suppose you have any quotes supporting this do you?
Since stating not in favour of "shoot to kill" is rather different than that.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

An entire brigade of straw men in there, Wiley...! Doing your trade proud...



In a world where our politicians are reduced to mouthpieces for whatever script their adviser has produced after multiple focus groups, it is nice to see one that actually tells us what he thinks

A shame what he thinks isnt a bit more coherent and better argued, for sure

But as I said before- if he is PRed to a fine sheen, he's just another politician, and not even a very good one

And in the end, it doesn't matter what you or I think, I suspect neither of us was going to vote for him anyway, whatever he says....

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to Shani:


I was talking in terms of normal firearms, not those which fired 'only' baton rounds in riots. Which given the context of the question was what everyone was referring to. You appear to have done a Corbyn and answered a Paris / IS terrorist related question, in a purely NI / civil order context, even though no one was or is talking about that.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



But he didn't really did he? He isn't "happy" with people getting shot. Well good, but who is? What we need to know is the stance he would take if there was situation similar to Paris in the UK with him in charge. The only conclusion we can take from what he said was he would waffle and wring his hands while doing nothing effective. If he actually thinks there should be no armed response, he should say so.

In reply to pec:

What does 'shoot to kill' mean? That the officer should under no circumstances try to shoot someone in the leg rather than head? If that's such a great idea, why wasn't it put in place years ago after the 7/7 bombings?

Or is it supposed to give police officers the right to shoot people in the head if they see it necessary? Isn't that what we already have?

In reply to RyanOsborne:

It was, or something like it, and resulted in the killing of de Menezes.


It is exactly what we have.

In reply to KevinD:


Watch the interview. I'm trying to be fair to the guy, and I have some sympathy with some of his views, but he waffles on about being unhappy with shoot to kill and how it's really quite dangerous but how we all know that there are various ways in which all this can be handled but that, really, it's all about not getting into this situation in the first place...

It almost sounded as if he didn't have a policy and hadn't thought through what he would actually do if he were Prime Minister in these circumstances. Now, I don't expect him to have a policy on everything at this stage, but it's not unreasonable that he might have some sort of clue about this, since he presumably agreed to be interviewed shortly after a major terrorist outrage.

In reply to Trevers:

Are you saying you want the law changed so that use of lethal force is illegal in self-defence? It seems this is what your post is saying because the policemen who shot de Menezes genuinely believed he was about to kill them and others on the tube.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

He might have said what he thinks but it's the same waffle crap other politicians come out with and tells us nothing about what he would do were he in charge.

As for shoot to kill, in the context of Islamic suicide bombers this surely relates to the Israeli policy of shoot to kill. Not wound, disable, etc, shoot til you're sure they're dead. If he's against that he should just say so, and give an alternative.

In reply to MG:


That's drivel though, MG- does anyone really think he'd get on the phone to Bernard hogan Howe and say, I'm suspending normal operating procedures, these terrorist who are currently executing people by the dozen and will continue to do so till they run out of ammunition are *not* to be stopped- take 'em alive, or let them get on with it...

If a 'Paris' was to happen in London, it would be an operational matter for the police, and no sane person would imagine the scenario I outline would actually take place.

He could, and should, have been clearer, and taken control of the agenda of the question; but its mischief making to suggest he would do anything other than allow the police to resolve the issue using whatever procedures they have in place.

In reply to Trevers:



So the government saying that the UK forces should 'shoot to kill' is of no relevance whatsoever it seems, as that's what they're already ordered to do anyway?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Its not drivel at all. I doubt he would be as direct as you suggest but essentially, yes, I think he would do that. It would be in lots of small ways though over time I imagine - not sanctioning equipment, training, scenario playing etc. He thinks it can all be sorted out through dialogue and being nice and understanding, which are essential but insufficient. It is clear he simply can't comprehend that sometimes, unfortunately, violencent force is needed.

In reply to MG:


Perhaps he is waiting for 'Abdul from Raqqa' to write in with a question or some guidance. He is only the leader of the UK's second largest political party, why should have an opinion on international terrorism or the arming of the UK's police forces, there is probably a charity bring & buy sale of home knitwear in Kensington this weekend to worry about.

In reply to summo:


If you are talking about shooting-to-kill someone who is in the perceived act of killing others, then yes, shooting to kill them is entirely appropriate as we have discussed above.

Just one further thing to consider - suicide bombers almost always conceal their weapons so that they can mingle amongst those they seek to harm. Given the immediacy of how quickly they can trigger their device, it opens up a large and very grey area between 'suspect' (which includes 'one who is deemed to be acting suspiciously' - itself a very subjective issue) and terrorist.

It is this space in to which Charles De Menezes befell. Widening the capacity for our security services to mistakenly 'shoot our own' is territory we should not freely concede.

In reply to MG:


Perhaps the fact he didnt say that should be a hint that he doesnt actually think that.

In reply to MG:

You think that the PM personally gets involved in the operational training and procurement of the met to that degree?

You also seem to be making assumptions about his views- that he would never accept the use of force in any circumstances- which I doubt are correct

It is absolutely true he could have made things clearer and fielded the question better though, so as to leave less room for mischief makers....

In reply to Shani:


I think the clues recently have been AK47 fire, religious shouting etc.. or when they chopped the guys head off on the side of a London road after running him over. In the run up to that the clues might have been harder to spot, but by the time the armed response arrives, I think it would be pretty clear what their intentions were.



There is always a risk, I imagine the security services and police are under a fair bit of stress right now, almost certainly dozens, if not hundreds of them working actively on the ground everyday in London alone. It's a choice, do nothing and risk everything? Nothing will remove human error, it can only be minimised.

In reply to MG:


No I don't, which is why I edited my post to point out it wasn't specifically a shoot-to-kill policy enacted there but one which the officers on the scene thought was a necessary response to an immediate threat (albeit one who had been apparently restrained)

In reply to summo:

You list several facetious examples - but again, NO ONE is denying that lethal (armed) response is appropriate when under AK47 fire from an assailant or of shooting someone intent on "[chopping a] guy's head off on the side of a London road after running him over".

Here is a question for you though. What were the 'clues' in the Charles De Menezes shooting?

Was it a puffa jacket? Brown skin? Running for a train? Lot's of brown people will be wearing puffa jackets over winter, let's hope none of them are in a rush and late for work!


No one is saying 'do nothing'. If our security services are stressed as you say, then perhaps giving stressed people a bigger 'grey area' in which to exercise their consequently impaired judgement is not the smartest idea - and certainly lowering the bar by employing the 'shoot to kill' of SUSPECTS will do little to minimise human error.


EDIT: One other point that becomes apparent. If we get to the point of 'shoot-to-kill' isn't that almost shutting the door after the horse has bolted? Imagine a suicide bomber on a crowded platform on the London tube. He is wearing clothing that means he blends in amongst other commuters. The type of jacket - worn by others on the platform - conceals the explosives. The armed units arrive and there is panic.

None of the commuters know WHO the bomber is - there are lots of brown faces (sorry for the stereotype), and lots of puffa jackets amongst the panicking hordes. Nor does anyone know what kind of trigger is fitted to the bomb....who do you shoot? Whom do you shoot first?

This thread has focused too much on downstream issues. Better intelligence and better social fabric are perhaps more effective at combating this menace.

In reply to Shani:

There were no clues, it was a failure communication, between those watching, following etc.. he was wrongly target. Those observing failed to watch properly and the armed police were incorrectly advised. The Police acted correctly on the information they were given, so the failing wasn't entirely theirs.



The one who has been identified and caused you to be called there in the first place? Something must have initiated this event? Plus in this scenario the police would always be too late, as you simply would not know in advance unless they were being follow etc.. if they were being followed and suspected, the police would engage them before they entered a confined space.


Totally agree, but with do-gooders too worried about GCHQ spotting them downloading porn etc.. it's more likely to occur again.

Plus, as the saying goes the intelligence services need to get lucky everyday, a suicide bomber only once. So it's a given that this kind of situation will happen again somewhere in Europe. Not to mention the porous border problem.

In reply to summo:


Let's look at France. All the suicide bombers got near/to their destination LONG before the police intercepted them. Shoot to kill would have had no impact. Intelligence would have.


You have NO idea about peer-to-peer secure communications. You could securely communicate with a fellow bomber using What'sApp, or a PS4, or DrawSomething or a 1-1 chess applicaiton, or Clash of Clans.....

Letting GCHQ spy on YOUR online activity is unlikely to stop terrorist activity. In fact Militant Islamic factions have been using secure encrypted communications since at least 2001.


Yep. Makes the case for intelligence rather than shoot-to-kill.

In reply to Shani:

Yes, but there was a shoot out on the French streets and some of them fled, the French police lost the shoot out. The stadium bomber was stopped at the entry point, that's why he detonated outside, he had tickets, but was / or was about to be searched. Those that fled, were stopped on the border and through a poor alert system, were let through. It could have been a better response on so many levels.


Back to insults I see, I have a pretty good idea thanks. You don't think the geeks in GCHQ don't know either? Just like with viruses, hackers etc.. it is arms race between the good and the bad, one creates, another finds a weakness and on it goes.


Unless either of us work for GCHQ, then we will never really know exactly what they can and can't access. I would make no presumptions on the level of tech know how within GCHQ.


One leads to the other, you still need to engage at some point, try to arrest etc.. to prevent the attack.

In reply to summo:


Those stopped outside the stadium - arming the police or employing STK would help how?


Not sure what your point is here. Letting GCHQ snoop on our communications and building back doors in to supposedly secure communications is a fundamentally flawed and bad idea. All forms of communication cannot be 'sniffed' appropriately and there are very real concerns as to why we should not let the UK security services have access to our personal data. Do we really want to follow the likes of China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Is this what we are holding up as democracy?


I'm a software developer and have a reasonable idea about security. Snowdon and Wikileaks have exposed much of what goes on. But phone tracking and email hacking is low level fruit. The 'bad guys' know this. Between the Dark Net and mobile apps/gaming there is a whole lot of space to communicate secretively and to pass keys....none of which will be stopped by GCHQ prying in to your personal correspondence or detailing to whom you communicate.

In reply to Shani:
"Between the Dark Net and mobile apps/gaming there is a whole lot of space to communicate secretively and to pass keys....none of which will be stopped by GCHQ prying in to your personal correspondence or detailing to whom you communicate."

That's obviously why we should shoot them dead.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



Snowden and wikileaks staff I presume. Won't harm.

In reply to Goucho:


Sure. Because you can always tell from a distance when somebody is a terrorist and that what they are carrying is a real loaded weapon, and not, perhaps a table leg? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Stanley


The Menezes family may have some other ideas about that.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Why do you say that? The point is Menezes *wasnt* armed and it was a horrible mistake. Suggesting his family think suicide bombers should go free is pretty low.

In reply to Mr Lopez:



Did you actually read any of the preceding posts before jumping in with this one?

In reply to MG:

Who said anything about suicide bombers "should go free"? Did i say that?

In reply to Mr Lopez:
Yes, it was implicit in what you said.

Had de Menezes been a bomber, any action but shooting hm would have resulted in mass murder (Ok success, not freedom In that case).

In reply to MG:

Not the way I read it.

In reply to MG:

Please explain to me how

>> And if he's also wearing a suicide vest, then it should also be a head shot.


Means

In reply to Mr Lopez:

See edit

In reply to MG:

That edit still doesn't explain how i suggested "his family think suicide bombers should go free". So i'm afraid you'll have to explain further

In reply to pec:
I dislike this sudden enthusiasm for a 'shoot to kill' policy which is a term perhaps coined by the IRA, decried previously as IRA propaganda and denied by the govt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9243891/SAS-soldiers-facing-...

Sometimes we need armed police or military in support to police but that's not what 'shoot to kill' means.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

There are only two options in a "real" Menezes situation: a) shoot the suicide bomber, or b) allow them to go or explode. You suggested the family didn't like a), therefore you implied they supported b)

In reply to EarlyBird:


Me neither

MG, you seem to be on a bit of a mission topput words in people's mouths today. ..

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Not really. As in the post above yours, sometimes there simply aren't other options.

In reply to MG:

It depends how you frame it

Mr lopez was replying to gouchos post about shooting terrorists. He made the point that the nice clean cut situation where there is 100 % certainty over the identity and intention of terrorists is not always the case in a real world situation. Genuine mistakes are not just possible but inevitable when scared people with guns have to make split second decisions.

Sure if everyone is certain the person is a suicide bomber your dichotomy is correct. BBut when it actually happens there is a fair chance there will be ambiguity. Reducing the threshold for when lethal force can be used against terrorist suspects makes a repeat of the de menezes tragedy more likely

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to summo:


I'm surprised you align yourself with ISIS' hopes of crushing democracy and liberty. Guess you are unwilling to stand up for freedom.

The NSA have had a surveillance program the result of which was that they found mass surveillance rather ineffective against terrorism.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/nsa-program-stopped-no-terror-attacks-say...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Well I agree there is discussion to be had there. However he still made the implication I pointed out, and to assume people whos son has been shot in those circumstances have any particular viewpoint is pretty distasteful

In reply to Sir Chasm:


If it was really that easy don't you think the French terrorists who attacked Paris recently would have been identified beforehand? If it was really that black and white, don't you think the British men behind 7/7 would have been picked up before their attack?

Do you really think killing people is that easy? That death can be wrought so lightly?

(I love macho keyboard warriors)

In reply to Shani:

You might have missed how the thread started, if we're (I mean the people we pay to do the dirty work) going to shoot terrorists then clearly they're going to be shot dead. What else would you suggest?

And yes, I'm a keyboard warrior. Like you, sweetie.

In reply to Shani:


Quite the opposite, but I would never associate wikileaks with standing up for freedom. Or are you ignoring the guy hiding in the South American dictator's house, whilst being wanted in another country for alleged sexual assault and rape. Pot and kettle spring to mind. Oh and the other chap who first fled to China and then Russia, two other countries famous for their freedom and democracy.

Anyway we digress, we will never know just what data retrieved is used to prevent any given act and I can live with that. I don't feel my freedom is restricted, because it isn't and if allowing GCHQ access to all UK internet/mobile/satellite traffic saves even one life, then for me it's worth it. Here Id cards are the norm, I scan the same card for picking a parcel, or for setting up an account somewhere. Yes, I'm tracked electronically if somebody decides too, but I've nothing to hide and it certainly makes fraud that bit tougher.

In reply to MG:

There are loads of other option beyond A and B, but i'll give you just the one:

C) The suspect is not a suicide bomber or terrorist.

Strange you couldn't come up with that one when it was in fact the correct option.

In reply to summo:


Assange is hiding because he doesn't think he'll get a fair trial. You'll be aware of the US and UK angaging in nefarious activities against its own citizens. You'd do well to support freedom on the individual and transparency in government.


And what if your support for StK leads to a single death of an innocent. ...such as a certain Brazilian electrician. ...?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Blimey, all this hot air. I don't think anyone was suggesting that shooting terrorists should be the only option, only that it should be one of the options available, where appropriate. The original discussion was about the fact that Corbyn appeared to be ruling it out, even as an option. It wasn't about a sinister policy of shooting on sight.

“There’s zero evidence that any of the attackers even used encryption" - @DouglasKMurray &#128251; https://t.co/QjRLB5ZMae https://t.co/...

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Ha, ha. Indeed. So to bring it back on topic.


Corbyn said he wasn't happy with a "shoot to kill" policy in general, and i agree. The "in general" is a key point that has been ignored by most i think, and which allows leeway for very exceptional circumstances.

In reply to pec:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-allow-shoot-t...


Are we all happy now?

In reply to Trevers:

Excellent! If he were PM, and something like Paris happened, then a day or 2 after the event Jeremy would have had time to think about it and conclude that maybe lethal force could be used. Better late than never.

In reply to Trevers:

Wow. That's proof that Corbyn reads UKC and he just pinched my line!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


That's exactly the wrong way round.

The shoot to kill policy, as puy to corbyn, was that in the event of a tertorist attack shoot to kill would be the default option.

Corbyn disagreed with that as a policy.

I actually disagree with Corbyn, but its a thing on which reasonable people can disagree. There seems to be a lot of wilful misinterpretation by people in the media and on here.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Excellent! If he were PM, and something like Paris happened, then a day or 2 after the event Jeremy would have had time to think about it and conclude that maybe lethal force could be used. Better late than never.

Jeremy or the team of damage limitation experts?

In reply to Shani:

Is he? I thought he was hiding because he thought extradition to Sweden meant he was going to be extradited to the US. Or something.

In fact I haven't heard him whining about the hideously unfair sharia-like court system practiced in the barbaric, third world, failed-state that is Sweden. Maybe I just haven't been listening.

In reply to Donald82:

I actually disagree with Corbyn, but its a thing on which reasonable people can disagree. There seems to be a lot of wilful misinterpretation by people in the media and on here.

I think a lot of people are as much concerned with his inability to field such a question as to the actual content.

In reply to Donald82:




Nonsense, the question was asked specifically in the context of the Paris attacks so it was clearly a question about what Corbyn might do in those circumstances. That is not a wilful misinterpretation. It is a logical and correct inference.

I would actually like to think that Corbyn wilfully misinterpreted the question. That would at least explain his answer, but I fear that he either didn't understand it or didn't understand the need for the answer that he has now given two days too late.

In reply to Shani:


Well he was in UK police custody, he wasn't extradited, he was released on bail. How did he repay the trust of that, he fled bail. If any country in Europe isn't going to send someone to the USA it's Sweden. The only thing your little freedom fighter is scared of, is the sexual offence investigation in Sweden. How doesn't seem to live by the same values he preaches to others, or the same rules that everyone else lives by in the UK.


It's a risk, we have to accept. Have a closer look at the images in France, do you really think the Police should be heading into that situation with anything other than proper ammunition and the correct policy. One coppers shield had 20+ shots in it. This isn't some Hollywood movie where the copper hit's the baddie with one shot in the shoulder, forces a confession and they stop the bomb with 3 secs left on the clock.

In reply to FactorXXX:


This, kind of. I just don't get the feeling he has clicked yet that as leader of the opposition his behaviour can't be the same as when he was a lone voice in the wilderness. This whole "being principled and then having to backtrack/clarify a few days later" thing (singing the national anthem, wearing a red poppy or a white one, and this latest one) just doesn't feel like its working very well for him and I can't imagine it's a great turn on to either the people who want his principles or the people who want a pragmatic leader of a strong opposition...

In reply to summo:


Strawman argument. No I don't think "the Police should be heading into that situation with anything other than proper ammunition and the correct policy", as we have clearly discussed above.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


And you trust Osbourne? Have a map to the f*cking sea!

In reply to Shani:


Exactly, so when an armed response unit heads out onto the road in London this morning, how do they know what will occur this afternoon? Carrying two types of ammunition at any one time is truly fool hardy, plenty of errors have happened in the past on training exercises when both blank and live ammo has been used.

or are you suggesting the police carry additional weapons to fire plastic bullets? What if a situation escalates and they aren't right next to their car, do they call 'time out', change guns then resume? Armed response often have tasers for the kind of situation you are thinking of, but that's not going to work at any great distance is it. I think you are living in too fluffy a world, it would be nice if people didn't have to be shot, but if they aren't they are certainly going to kill a lot more innocent people.

In precisely what incident that police armed response cars are sent to, are they not to shoot to kill? A first offence armed robber? A hostage situation? A person with a big knife running at you? Or no members of the public within X numbers of metres etc..

In reply to summo:

WTF?


What the heck are you on about? No one is arguing for the use of plastic bullets when lethal force is required.


You don't know what the 'shoot to kill' policy was/is, do you?

In reply to summo:


The vast majority of incidents they attend end with them not killing anyone. As it should be.
jk

In reply to summo:


a. it's not GCHQ that people are worried about. The database is being kept by ISPs like TalkTalk and is being made accessible to far more government agencies than GCHQ. It would be much less risky if it was inside GCHQ and accessible only to a small number of GCHQ employees with security clearance. Recent history suggests the database *will* be hacked and quite likely put on the web for everyone to download.

b. A database of every web page accessed by every person in the UK can easily be combined with other databases to enable queries like 'Give me the name of every serving police officer who is married and has visited a gay dating site in the last year' or 'show me the startup technology company web pages accessed by the CTO of ARM' or 'show me any CEO's of FTSE 100 companies who have visited websites about cancer more than 10 times'. It is intentionally creating the world's largest blackmail and corporate espionage database.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If the authorities (or anyone else for that matter) trawled through my internet history, they had better have a box of kleenex handy.





I love reading obituaries

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

That and the continued mumblings about downgrading encryption which would be nice when shopping online/using business vpn etc.

In reply to Shani:


it was you that suggested that they should not shoot to kill.


yes, I do, but thanks for asking.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

if somebody wanted that information, it would be much easier to hack the individuals concerned, than companies connected with national security.

In reply to jkarran:


I agree, but how at the start of a working day, or even whilst driving to an incident do they know that? They don't, so they need to be prepared for everything and anything.

In reply to summo:


Not that straight forward. It is easier to steal a dump of data and sift for 'valuable' people than to target an individual in the hope they have compromised security. Alternatively just a blanket blackmail attempt across lots of individuals can be easily automated and orchestrated.

On the topic of snooping, one other problem with online profiling (particularly of online history) is the number of false positives.

In reply to Shani:


true, surely that's down to how much you invest in the system? But, also whilst trawling the net, eliminating and not storing data that is clearly irrelevant. Some data may appear initially irrelevant, but I'd imagine that have a reasonable level of experience now of being able to separate some of the chaff, from people who are clearly not likely to be terrorists, like company CEOs or serving police officers.


But, even then it still reduces the fields of people to look at more deeply, rather than the whole population. No search algorithm is going to be perfect, or even close as life is full of variables.

In reply to summo:

1/ you don't know who are the individuals a priori. It's a fishing expedition

2/ talk talk is a 'company connected with national security'? Now I'm very afraid....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Yes, but, if the UK had a more joined up system, surely a quick run of somebody's NI number, see their employment, police records, tax, travel all in one intergrated system and they could be eliminated. Or at least a fair percentage, then you don't have to trawl so deep into their online/phone history? Being realistic, as far as IS goes, every terrorist is a muslim, that is a reasonable start point, a fair proportion of them have travelled abroad in the past 5 years to a few very specific countries, many have or do reside in parts of cities that are known to harbour extremist preachers etc.. that would eliminate about 99% of the UK population straight away. The problem is, because of so many 'isms' people don't want to say it as it is.


you would think that if this was put in place, then those companies which are contracted etc.. would have rules or legislation enforcing how they store their data etc.. Yeah, I know companies will cut corners to save money etc.. so perhaps it should be in some national archive, where the government recruits some decent IT staff to run it? Just don't give a job to someone by the name of Snowden posting their CV in from Russia.

In reply to pec:

Well just remember that some of the Politicians who are promoting the idea of more bombing are the same one's who escorted arms dealers to the middle east to sell the guns, so maybe the 'war on terror' would be less aggressive if Western Countries weren't putting arms into the hands of those who are happy to sympathise with fundamentalists.

And on the subject of shoot to kill policies, American police are responsible for 1000 deaths in 2015 alone. No mention of air strikes against them.

And finally is a Climbing forum the place for your political rants, wouldn't you get a better response from the Daily Mail or is that where you get your ideas.

In reply to summo:


Is anyone seriously suggesting otherwise?
jk

In reply to lrac666:


That's a good point.


I don't think that is, it doesn't really make sense.


I see you're new. There's been political discussion on this site, and the newsgroups that came before it, for as long as I can remember. You won't change that and the inclusion of the non climbing forums (off belay, the pub) encourages it. I would say, it is balanced, or at least a reflection of society as a whole

In reply to summo:


Ah yes - WikiBadPerson. It is not going to happen. The bad guys went underground a long time ago using the dark net, VPNs, proxies, obfuscation, spoofing, encyption (AES (Rijndael) 256bit, RC6 256bit, Serpent 256bit, Blowfish 448bit, Twofish 256bit, GOST 256bit + Threefish 1024bit and SHACAL-2 512bit - all of which you can freely use as a developer with ready made APIs at your disposal).


There are rules governing the storing of private data, but companies ignore these rules. We have non-technical managers all over the West who offshore applications, spinning up VMs in the next cheapest country, leveraging staff across accounts at the cheapest of cost. They get hacked.

In reply to Shani:

More grist AGAINST allowing the government to snoop on our encrypted communications!

"...news emerging from Paris — as well as evidence from a Belgian ISIS raid in January — suggests that the ISIS terror networks involved were communicating in the clear, and that the data on their smartphones was not encrypted."

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/18/signs-point-to-unencrypted-communicatio...

In reply to Shani:


Technology nerd alert!

In reply to Goucho:


Yep, I love it.

In reply to lrac666:


Is this a reply to my OP or some wierd dream you had? I don't see much connection.


This is the Off Belay forum, clever pun isn't it, you know, on a climbing website

In reply to Trevers:

I don't rate the Guardian as some epitome of journalism but they've never stooped so low.

I feel a game coming on. Anyone want to join in? Here's my first shot: -

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/15/boris-johnson-rugby-lo...

In reply to lrac666:

Well just remember that some of the Politicians who are promoting the idea of more bombing are the same one's who escorted arms dealers to the middle east to sell the guns, so maybe the 'war on terror' would be less aggressive if Western Countries weren't putting arms into the hands of those who are happy to sympathise with fundamentalists.

Are you including the Russians (USSR) in this?

In reply to Trevers:



How can it take him than one attempt to get such a serious message across, at such an important time?

Wayne Rooney managed a better fist of it last night and he'd been running around like a bastard playing international football for 2 hours beforehand.

In reply to Shani:


Didn't your later post at 16:43 disprove this comment?

ps. it's quite easy to add clauses into a data storage contract that prevent the bidder or winner from out sourcing any element or off shoring, you simply set it in the initial terms.

In reply to summo:

It is complex. The French terrorists of last week were technological amateurs. However Osama Bin Laden was known to be using encrypted phone calls back in 2001.

What this suggests is that if the intelligence service can still be effective by getting the basics right, and with their current legal toolset. Paris is NOT an argument for greater snooping powers by the security services.


It is not just about where data is stored it is access to it. Databases can be cloned (in fact most important ones are backed up weekly and the transaction logs are often backed up nightly). How can you tell if someone has cloned a backup? You don't even need to go as far as cloning. A compromised security model can be very hard to detect - especially if support goes through of outsourcing processes (and both government and large corporations favour outsourcing to 'deliver consumer value').

One of the more concerning issues is that of allowing the government and other agencies to access the materials of an investigative journalist. Or intruding upon the activities of opposition parties.

In reply to FactorXXX:
"I feel a game coming on. Anyone want to join in? Here's my first shot: -"

I wonder if anyone was unfortunate enough to read an article on Jonah Lomu in the Guardian yesterday (which they quickly removed after hundreds of negative comments) where it tried to pay tribute to him through gritted teeth because he had the audacity to be conservative, which in their opinion was a black mark on his book, especially as he was of Polynesian background...but they did mention he was pretty good at rugby in the third paragraph....for a tory....etc.

Anyway, glad they removed it swiftly. It wasn't a good moment for them

In reply to winhill:



You're right, he is the first politician to ever mince his words or not make himself completely clear.

In reply to Shani:


yes, it is, first you say that everything is encrypted and GCHQ couldn't read it, so there is no point in spying on them, then you say that their phones weren't encrypted in Paris and but that still means you don't need to spy. Are you Jeremy Corbyn?


Which is why you specify in the contract everything is in house, in country and you don't have vendor management issues then.


you mean like guardian journalists who were linked with the stolen classified data, or going back & forth to Russia & Snowden? It's a political given that all political parties will spy on each other and that even countries within the EU will do the same. It's foolish to think otherwise. Germany made a big fuss about the NSA looking at Merkel, then it emerged that Germany's agencies were doing exactly the same to several other countries.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:




They are the Daily Mail of the left. Often an embarrassment rather than a reference.

In reply to summo:


Some terrorists are using encrypted communications. This does not mean all terrorists are using encrypted communications. Your current outbursts are precipitated by events in Paris. Why call for increased snooping powers when the Paris events could have been stopped without them?


Clearly you're ignorant of the inherent flaws in IT security models and contractual models. Mass data breaches are all to regular even in quite sensitive areas. Do you think this hack was brought about a contractual shortfall? https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/securus-hack-prison-phone-company-expos...




There is a defence of 'public interest'. A democracy needs to be able to hold its government to account.

In reply to Shani:

yeah, just like Corbyn's question, it was clearly referenced to recent events. If you chose to any otherwise....


So we do nothing and make no attempt to track terrorism is the outer reaches of communications?


you can nationally and locally every 5 years.

In reply to summo:


Eh?


What we DON'T need to do is to build in a greater vulnerability. The straw man in your argument here is that the Paris bombers' communications could have been intercepted with existing powers.


But you can't make an informed choice if there is secrecy and obfuscation behind the government's activities.

In reply to Shani:


that certainly applies to Corbyn and the labour party, who know what their opinion or stance is anymore on anything.

In reply to Summo:

You'll probably be uninterested in an evidence-based approach to foresaking freedoms, but if not:

https://theconversation.com/after-paris-its-traditional-detective-work-that...

In reply to Shani:

You'll probably be uninterested in an evidence-based approach to foresaking freedoms, but if not:

Wouldn't a combination of all types of intelligence gathering be the best solution?

In reply to pec:

Without reading the thread, I think what happened is that JC simply didn't answer the question he was being asked because he couldn't believe how stupid it was. The answer to the question, 'as PM would you allow lethal force against terrorists who are actually in the process of carrying out a terrorist attack' is obviously (a) f*ck, yeah, and (b) you do realise it's not up the PM anyway, don't you? I think JC interpreted the question to mean, 'if there is a terrorist attack, will you authorise some sort of ramped-up security in response' and jerked his knee along the shouldn't-have-shot-the-Gib-terrorists-or-JCdeM lines we're all familiar with. A fail, but a media-management rather than a policy fail. Still, he'll need to improve in this area.

jcm

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>Given that around 30% of the population consistently don't vote in elections, if he can tap into that group, he may yet pose a threat to the orthodoxy.

I read a good stat, whose detail I forget, but it was along these lines; of the 100 constituencies with the lowest turnouts, 96 are already Labour.

That's not good news for the notion that getting out people who don't presently vote is going to win an election, as opposed to increasing Labour's share of the overall vote.

jcm

In reply to pec:

I liked Corbyn's resistance to trite and simple replies, always attempting to give a fuller, rounded anwser rather than a soundbite. But leadership demands clarity in difficult times. You have to reassure as well and be direct as regards serious events - showing decisiveness and those qualites are currently eluding him. He's a thoughtful man but these are also extreme times and his qualities are unsuited sometimes . He'll have to work at it!

In reply to FactorXXX:


Yes, but not blanket surveillance. Not at the expense of basic liberties. Not if opportunities are created for other less sensational but equally damaging illicit behaviour. Not if it impairs our ability to investigate our governments.

You could create a society where all terrorist action was impossible, but you wouldn't want to live in it.

I understand that France invoked further snooping powers after Charlie Hebdo and again after the (thwarted) TGV attack. These increased powers had no discernible influence on recent events.

In reply to Shani:

Yes, but not blanket surveillance. Not at the expense of basic liberties. Not if opportunities are created for other less sensational but equally damaging illicit behaviour. Not if it impairs our ability to investigate our governments.

Is anyone actually suggesting that?

In reply to FactorXXX:



The Home Office have yet to clarify details but at its core details of our every email, website visit and social media log are to be recorded. Your online life, EVERYONE's online life, will be documented. I don't think blanket surveillance is too strong a phrase.

In reply to Shani:

The Home Office have yet to clarify details but at its core details of our every email, website visit and social media log are to be recorded. Your online life, EVERYONE's online life, will be documented. I don't think blanket surveillance is too strong a phrase.

Will they be reading everyone's emails then?
If not, who cares if they've got a record of your Internet history.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Yep, it's a deeply flawed strategy.

- There is no compelling evidence that the non-voters are particularly left wing, and plenty that they aren't that different to voters.

-If the above was wrong, if there are a more left wing non-voters, then it's obvious that by attracting these voters Labour will lose voters from the centre.

It's a no-hoper.

In reply to Shani:


As I understand it, one of the proposals is that websites visited might be retained, to be accessed on suitably authorised application. Specific pages within each website would be recorded but only accessible on a specific targetted application - under warrant to home sec or similar.

As I recall even the independent reviewer of terrorism is dubious as to whether the case has been made for that, so I'm not convinced it will be implemented.

However it's worth bearing in mind that almost certainly the retention of comms data from mobile phones has been involved in the tracing and identification of the remaining members of the Paris terrorist gang and associates.