Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Chorley1974 said:
Just to clarify, Corbyn's response to this situation and national security is the same as David Cameron's?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do not have a blanket shoot-to-kill policy in this country.

In that context they are identical, 'operational matter' for the police "clear legal framework" and that the police "have extensive training" in other words, if a police officer takes the decision to shoot someone, and kills them, they have to be convinced that they are justified in doing so.

It is exactly the same as if you or I kill someone, the police have no special dispensation in this area.

sun_tzu said:
Well no Cameron basically said there is a policy in place (where the police can choose when to shoot people) and corbyn said he is not happy with that.
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. You're misinformed on the current situation and are jumping to incorrect conclusions.

Absolutely nowhere does Cameron's aide say 'we think that a shoot to kill policy is a good idea'.

I'm also going to leave this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-to-kill_policy_in_Northern_Ireland
 
Last edited:
The people wanting to bash Corbyn wrongly interpret a "shoot-to-kill policy" as meaning shooting active terrorist shooters, and interpret Corbyn's opposition to it as him somehow suggesting that he would let them continue their attack unopposed.

What a shoot-to-kill policy actually means is authorising the police to execute suspects without making any attempt to arrest them. Like Jean Charles de Menezes.

He has fallen for a gotcha question in that he should have realised that plenty of people would be dumb/disingenuous enough to confuse the two.

bishblaize said:


Click to expand...


So he didn't say no? :angel: And I'm wary of trusting an, at best, second-hand quote of something that supposedly happened at a PLP meeting. Finally, John Mann is guilty of exactly the conflation I outline above.
 
Untied said:
The people wanting to bash Corbyn wrongly interpret a "shoot-to-kill policy" as meaning shooting active terrorist shooters, and interpret Corbyn's opposition to it as him somehow suggesting that he would let them continue their attack unopposed.

He has fallen for a gotcha question
Click to expand...

He was questioned based on a hypothetical Paris type scenario so it's easy to see why people are saying what they are

But yes an obvious gotcha question and political incompetence of the highest order to walk right into it
 
sun_tzu said:
He was questioned based on a hypothetical Paris type scenario so it's easy to see why people are saying what they are

But yes an obvious gotcha question and political incompetence of the highest order to walk right into it
Click to expand...

The only other thing I would say is I'd be interested to hear how Cameron would answer the same question. If he immediately answered "Yes, we should have a shoot-to-kill policy", well that is objectively a bad thing. No one should want suspects executed without reasonable attempt being made to detain them (again if they are actively engaged in a terrorist attack, that is a different matter). I'm assuming he would have been a bit bolder with the answers to the very specific examples that were presented. This is often where Corbyn lets journalists walk him into traps.
 
Untied said:
The only other thing I would say is I'd be interested to hear how Cameron would answer the same question. If he immediately answered "Yes, we should have a shoot-to-kill policy", well that is objectively a bad thing. No one should want suspects executed without reasonable attempt being made to detain them (again if they are actively engaged in a terrorist attack, that is a different matter). I'm assuming he would have been a bit bolder with the answers to the very specific examples that were presented. This is often where Corbyn lets journalists walk him into traps.
Click to expand...
Well Cameron just authorised said directive to deploy the military with a shoot to kill remit based on a Paris type scenario as per the link above so I think his answers would be pretty clear and draw a contrast with those of corbyn
 
sun_tzu said:
Which is why people are rightly using the Paris example and why Corbyn has made himself look like a total mug
Click to expand...

Kind of. If Kuenssberg had been referencing that she'd have asked "Do you agree that the response to hostage takings should be changed such that neutralising the hostage takers, if they are suspected terrorists, is the priority rather than negotiation?" If he'd answered no to that it would be hugely damning. But she actually asked about "shoot-to-kill" on the streets of Britain which is a very different thing, one which Corbyn no doubt associates with Northern Ireland, and which he is right to oppose.

Having now watched the whole interview in context there is literally nothing controversial about what he says on the matter.
 
Untied said:
Kind of. If Kuenssberg had been referencing that she'd have asked "Do you agree that the response to hostage takings should be changed such that neutralising the hostage takers, if they are suspected terrorists, is the priority rather than negotiation?" If he'd answered no to that it would be hugely damning. But she actually asked about "shoot-to-kill" on the streets of Britain which is a very different thing, one which Corbyn no doubt associates with Northern Ireland, and which he is right to oppose.

Having now watched the whole interview in context there is literally nothing controversial about what he says on the matter.
Click to expand...
Mis management of the highest order... Wait to see his next poling figures - inept and unelectable
The context was as pointed out in ref to the new powers authorised by downing Street... If he for one second thought otherwise he should be making statements correcting it right now because this is going to make up a lot of people's mind about him not being fit for office... I'm sure it will be thrown back him (probably six times) at pmq's as well so the timing is awful.
 
"If we saw the kinds of horror we saw in Paris here, would you order the police and security services on to the street to stop people being killed?"

Of course you bring the people on to the streets to prevent… and ensure there is safety within our society. It's much better that is done by the police than by the security services.​

"If you were prime minister would you be happy to order people, police or military, to shoot-to-kill on Britain's streets?"

I'm not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous, and can quite often be counter productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you 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 prevent these things from happening.​


Look, mad Jihadi Jez in all his shame :rolleyes:
 
sun_tzu said:
I didn't say that he did...
Click to expand...

Then you're making a ridiculously basic error.

I have provided a wikipedia article for you, and you should probably read Untied's post too.

As for your insistent refrain that he 'walked right into it' then I'd argue Corbyn is working under a level of media scrutiny that everything he says means he 'walks right into' something because people, like you have, will twist whatever he said in to an attack on him.

I also think you should probably watch the Corbyn interview, which you plainly haven't done, its a wide ranging interview that addresses plenty of issues in a lot more eloquence than I think you think Corybn is capable of. It's also an incredibly one sided write up by the BBC. Why didn't they focus on, for example, what he said about Britain's foreign policy over the past 10 years?

Let's argue for a second that I thought the extra judiciary murder of people was a good idea and take Cameron's aides quote at face value and subject it to the insane scrutiny that the Tory press do to Corbyn.

'WHAT DOES HE MEAN ITS AN OPERATIONAL MATTER, DOESNT CAMERON KNOW THAT THERES TERRORISTS ON THE LOOSE, WE SHOULD STORM DOWN THEIR HOUSES AND SHOOT FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LATER. IN FACT WE SHOULD SHOOT EVERYONE WITH A BEARD, THAT WILL SOON SORT IT'

See? It's easy to get outraged.

On the subject of shoot to kill, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the fact that Cameron has appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner and is authorising the murder of British citizens, regardless of their crimes. If they were all high ranking targets then you could at least make the case that they were operationally justified but someone like Jihadi John, whilst undeniably a complete cnut who got what was coming to him, was by all accounts an absolute nobody who got himself famous by getting in front of a camera.

sun_tzu said:
Mis management of the highest order... Wait to see his next poling figures - inept and unelectable
The context was as pointed out in ref to the new powers authorised by downing Street... If he for one second thought otherwise he should be making statements correcting it right now because this is going to make up a lot of people's mind about him not being fit for office... I'm sure it will be thrown back him (probably six times) at pmq's as well so the timing is awful.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
I'd also like to take back any suggestion that Laura Kuenssberg was trying to trap him. It was a pretty reasonable question to which he gave a reasonable answer.
 
Untied said:
"If we saw the kinds of horror we saw in Paris here, would you order the police and security services on to the street to stop people being killed?"

Of course you bring the people on to the streets to prevent… and ensure there is safety within our society. It's much better that is done by the police than by the security services.​

"If you were prime minister would you be happy to order people, police or military, to shoot-to-kill on Britain's streets?"

I'm not happy with a shoot-to-kill policy in general. I think that is quite dangerous, and can quite often be counter productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you 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 prevent these things from happening.​


Look, mad Jihadi Jez in all his shame :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So pm authorises military to respond with shoot to kill authority in the event of a Paris style attack
Corbyn says he thinks it's a bad idea...

Corbynistas get upset that they backed an idiot and try to blame media
 
Untied said:
I'd also like to take back any suggestion that Laura Kuenssberg was trying to trap him. It was a pretty reasonable question to which he gave a reasonable answer.
Click to expand...

Phrasing it as "would you be happy to" was a bit wrong I thought but don't think she did it intentionally.
 
sun_tzu said:
So pm authorises military to respond with shoot to kill authority in the event of a Paris style attack
Corbyn says he thinks it's a bad idea...

Corbynistas get upset that they backed an idiot and try to blame media
Click to expand...

Stop it with that childish "Corbynista" bollocks, makes you sound like an idiot.
 
sun_tzu said:
So pm authorises military to respond with shoot to kill authority in the event of a Paris style attack
Corbyn says he thinks it's a bad idea...

Corbynistas get upset that they backed an idiot and try to blame media
Click to expand...

Can you please at least watch the Corbyn interview before you continue to make yourself look ridiculous?
 
"If the situation demanded it, yes". Pretty much all he needed to say.

The Paul Waugh tweets that bishblaize posted are pretty damning (and he's a very reliable journo that doesn't bash Corbyn, just reports).
 
NinjaFletch said:
Yes, we do not have a blanket shoot-to-kill policy in this country.

In that context they are identical, 'operational matter' for the police "clear legal framework" and that the police "have extensive training" in other words, if a police officer takes the decision to shoot someone, and kills them, they have to be convinced that they are justified in doing so.

It is exactly the same as if you or I kill someone, the police have no special dispensation in this area.

OK, a leading question on my part. That being the he's just communicating it appallingly badly if that's the case.
Click to expand...
NinjaFletch said:
Yes, we do not have a blanket shoot-to-kill policy in this country.

In that context they are identical, 'operational matter' for the police "clear legal framework" and that the police "have extensive training" in other words, if a police officer takes the decision to shoot someone, and kills them, they have to be convinced that they are justified in doing so.

It is exactly the same as if you or I kill someone, the police have no special dispensation in this area.



No, he didn't. You're misinformed on the current situation and are jumping to incorrect conclusions.

Absolutely nowhere does Cameron's aide say 'we think that a shoot to kill policy is a good idea'.

I'm also going to leave this here:

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


A leading question on my part. If Corbyn's policy is the same then he's an appalling communicator, my point being that reaction to events in France leaves Corbyn and Cameron miles apart in terms in the perception of the public.
 
sun_tzu said:
So pm authorises military to respond with shoot to kill authority in the event of a Paris style attack
Corbyn says he thinks it's a bad idea...

Corbynistas get upset that they backed an idiot and try to blame media
Click to expand...

But shoot-to-kill authority in a general sense IS a bad idea. I wouldn't want the police and the military shooting any terrorist suspects without making any attempt to arrest them in the aftermath of a Paris style attack. As Corbyn says, there are degrees: If someone is actively toting a submachine gun, use whatever force necessary to ensure they are not a threat.

Ubik said:
"If the situation demanded it, yes". Pretty much all he needed to say.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a situation that demands a general shoot-to-kill policy, unless we are abandoning our judicial system. We don't want our police to become more American in outlook
 
NinjaFletch said:
Can you please at least watch the Corbyn interview before you continue to make yourself look ridiculous?
Click to expand...

I watched it today and it wasn't a great answer to the questions posed.

Corbyn may very well have his pacifist principles but as leader of the Labour Party he's also required to put himself - and his party - in a position to win over the electorate. He didn't do that today.

Corbyn is by all means quite right to maintain his beliefs, but the general public value their safety. He needs to feed on that, as poorly phrased as that sounds.
 
Sweet Square said:
Exactly it's a hard question to answer.
Click to expand...

Shoot-to-kill does not mean shoot-to-kill people who are a threat, or shoot-to-kill active terrorists. It means authorising the police and military to summarily execute terror suspects.
 
On an entirely different matter, is this legal?

ukip-corbyn-oldham-leaflet.jpg


(UKIP flyer)
 
Chorley1974 said:
A leading question on my part. If Corbyn's policy is the same then he's an appalling communicator, my point being that reaction to events in France leaves Corbyn and Cameron miles apart in terms in the perception of the public.
Click to expand...

I don't really think thats true.

Corbyn's quotes are from an interview where he was asked his opinion on a multitude of topics. As such, he gave his opinion. Something which Cameron's statement didn't require.

I really find it hard to believe that anyone genuinely thinks that he said, 'I don't agree with shooting someone even if thats the only way to stop them' (he didn't).

I'm similarly confused that some people seem to think the statement 'murder is ok, as long as we don't like them' (which is exactly what a shoot to kill policy is) is ever justifiable.

Kag said:
I watched it today and it wasn't a great answer to the questions posed.

Corbyn may very well have his pacifist principles but as leader of the Labour Party he's also required to put himself - and his party - in a position to win over the electorate. He didn't do that today.

Corbyn is by all means quite right to maintain his beliefs, but the general public value their safety. He needs to feed on that, as poorly phrased as that sounds.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, I think it was a perfectly fine answer to the question in and of itself. Should he have foreseen that it would be taken out of context and used against him? Maybe.

But the same thing could have been done with anything he says, lets say his perfectly reasonable statement that the confused foreign policy of the recent past has allowed the rise of IS (not to mention the notable fact that had Cameron got his way 2 years ago and bombed Assad we'd have facilitated that rise) was picked up by the sun:

'JIHADI JEZ BLAMES BRITISH HEROS FOR RISE OF ISIS: SHOCKING RANT LAYS BLAME FOR PARIS ATTACK AT THE FEET OF HER MAJESTY'S FINEST (oh and he wants to get rid of her too'

I find it bizarre in this day and age where we can fact check within seconds that people can be so easily spoonfed what to think. And blame Corbyn for having his words twisted, rather than the press for doing the twisting. I find myself sticking up for Corbyn far more often than I like, simply because so much of the stuff thrown at him is so ridiculous.
 
Ubik said:
The Paul Waugh tweets that bishblaize posted are pretty damning (and he's a very reliable journo that doesn't bash Corbyn, just reports).
Click to expand...

I'm quite sceptical of everything that comes out of the PLP meetings at the moment. There are plenty of Labour MPs who can't stand Corbyn who are happy to give journalists negative quotes.

[That's not to say it didn't happen, just that whoever passed on the info may well have an agenda and so will have presented it as negatively as possible]

People like Simon Danczuk. A man who criticised Corbyn in a national paper (The Independent I believe) for not paying proper respect to Remembrance Sunday. And who then tweeted during the two-minute silence on Armistice day.
 
Simon Danzcuk can feck off.
 
Shamwow said:
Simon Danzcuk can feck off.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand what he is trying to achieve at the moment. But this was hilarious. If you are going to criticise someone else's remembrance you better make sure your own is faultless
 
Untied said:
I don't really understand what he is trying to achieve at the moment. But this was hilarious. If you are going to criticise someone else's remembrance you better make sure your own is faultless
Click to expand...

The only thing he's good for is hypocrisy.
 
Untied said:
Shoot-to-kill does not mean shoot-to-kill people who are a threat, or shoot-to-kill active terrorists. It means authorising the police and military to summarily execute terror suspects.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with what Corbyn is saying on shoot-to-kill but he got asked the question after being asked about the recent incidents in Paris, he must know that whatever he says next will be important and will be used by the people to paint a certain picture of him so to then go on about the wider implications of shoot-to-kill is completely native and well just a bit shit.

The guy has got to start thinking about what he says and when he says it and how it will effect the public perception of him. A simply ''If the situation demanded it, yes'' would have be more than enough
It would of being hard to get twisted by the papers as the public aren't in the best mood after Paris and also would of(Well maybe) shut up some of the Labour centrists who are worried Corbyn is just simply unelectable. The one group it would of pissed off is the left of Labour but that doesn't really matter as their always on Corbyn side.

So it not what Corbyn said that annoyed but when he said it. He's got to be smarter.
 
Untied said:
But shoot-to-kill authority in a general sense IS a bad idea. I wouldn't want the police and the military shooting any terrorist suspects without making any attempt to arrest them in the aftermath of a Paris style attack. As Corbyn says, there are degrees: If someone is actively toting a submachine gun, use whatever force necessary to ensure they are not a threat.



I don't think there is a situation that demands a general shoot-to-kill policy, unless we are abandoning our judicial system. We don't want our police to become more American in outlook
Click to expand...
But this was in response to a specific scenario. It wasn't about whether it should be an established and ongoing policy, it was in reference to a hypothetical (I know Corbyn doesn't like these) ongoing terror attack where armed police and/or the military had been deployed. In that situation, where the attackers are known to have rifles and suicide vests, what is going to result in fewer civilian deaths? De Menezes was a clusterfeck, no-one wants to see that repeated, and that wasn't the scenario that was given.
Untied said:
I'm quite sceptical of everything that comes out of the PLP meetings at the moment. There are plenty of Labour MPs who can't stand Corbyn who are happy to give journalists negative quotes.

[That's not to say it didn't happen, just that whoever passed on the info may well have an agenda and so will have presented it as negatively as possible]

People like Simon Danczuk. A man who criticised Corbyn in a national paper (The Independent I believe) for not paying proper respect to Remembrance Sunday. And who then tweeted during the two-minute silence on Armistice day.
Click to expand...
If it was Danczuk I'd likely agree. Mann's not on that level, and Waugh wouldn't blithely post hearsay.
 
Sweet Square said:
I pretty much agree with what Corbyn is saying on shoot-to-kill but he got asked the question after being asked about the recent incidents in Paris, he must know that whatever he says next will be important and will be used by the people to paint a certain picture of him so to then go on about the wider implications of shoot-to-kill is completely native and well just a bit shit.

The guy has got to start thinking about what he says and when he says it and how it will effect the public perception of him. A simply ''If the situation demanded it, yes'' would have be more than enough
It would of being hard to get twisted by the papers as the public aren't in the best mood after Paris and also would of(Well maybe) shut up some of the Labour centrists who are worried Corbyn is just simply unelectable. The one group it would of pissed off is the left of Labour but that doesn't really matter as their always on Corbyn side.

So it not what Corbyn said that annoyed but when he said it. He's got to be smarter.
Click to expand...

That's an entirely fair criticism. He needs to smarten up to a media that is dedicated to twisting everything he says.

I mean just to take this example. As you say, let's ignore the wider implications of a shoot-to-kill policy and focus entirely on a shoot-to-kill policy enacted in the aftermath of a terrorist attack in Britain. Any discussion we have about this should be dominated by the Operation Kratos tactics, and the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes. This is the one, recent, specific example we have of exactly what Corbyn was asked. But instead it is somehow made out that opposing shoot-to-kill in the aftermath of a terrorist attack is an abhorrent idea, as if Corbyn somehow wants to let terrorism continue unopposed.

So yes, he 100% needs to wise up. But this is another issue where he is right, the media is wrong, and yet he is inevitably portrayed as the villain of the piece.
 
Ubik said:
But this was in response to a specific scenario. It wasn't about whether it should be an established and ongoing policy, it was in reference to a hypothetical (I know Corbyn doesn't like these) ongoing terror attack where armed police and/or the military had been deployed. In that situation, where the attackers are known to have rifles and suicide vests, what is going to result in fewer civilian deaths? De Menezes was a clusterfeck, no-one wants to see that repeated, and that wasn't the scenario that was given.
Click to expand...

I don't agree about the specificity of the question: "If you were prime minister would you be happy to order people, police or military, to shoot-to-kill on Britain's streets?"

It is following on from her previous question about a terror attack, but if you ask me it stands pretty independently. The question definitely isn't "Would you order police/military to shoot suspected attackers in an ongoing terror attack?" If I were answering her question I would think of De Menezes. But that of course represents my own views/bias.

Ubik said:
If it was Danczuk I'd likely agree. Mann's not on that level, and Waugh wouldn't blithely post hearsay.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't implying it was Danczuk, and although the quote's are Mann's it doesn't mean he passed it on himself. I was just using him as an example of why I am sceptical of PLP reporting at the moment. Journalist's are reliant on what the MPs pass to them, so even if Waugh wouldn't post hearsay he may be only getting one or two critical perspectives of Corbyn. Again, emphasis on may, but as I said, I'm just sceptical. I'm not ignoring it, I just wouldn't rely on it in an argument.
 
I think maybe some people are confusing a bit of plain speaking truth from Corbyn for idiocy because they're so used to slick MP's like Cameron spinning everything, lying and telling the public what they want to hear, only to go back on promises later on.

Yes, Corbyn could come out and say yes we'll murder them all in their sleep or whatever it is the public think they want to hear that day and what the rest of the media and party's are telling people they should want, but he doesn't. He tells you what he believes is the right long term stance for the country. Its just a shame our politics is such a farce that we allow the party's and media to get away with spinning, smearing and lying so much.
 
GimmeAKitKat said:
I think maybe some people are confusing a bit of plain speaking truth from Corbyn for idiocy because they're so used to slick MP's like Cameron spinning everything, lying and telling the public what they want to hear, only to go back on promises later on.

Yes, Corbyn could come out and say yes we'll murder them all in their sleep or whatever it is the public think they want to hear that day and what the rest of the media and party's are telling people they should want, but he doesn't. He tells you what he believes is the right long term stance for the country. Its just a shame our politics is such a farce that we allow the party's and media to get away with spinning, smearing and lying so much.
Click to expand...

Let me sense check, Corbyn is a politician, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.