[Parmy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Ah but that'll be seen as okay though because at present it's a Conservative govt doing so.
Really good point however Brother Leon.

Have we ever not been in business with the suadis the last 50 yrs?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

People who don't support the Tories are not going to think Theresa May is very good, and all those who feel the same will support them. Meanwhile, the alternative is terrorist-appeasing Corbyn. If Corbyn had been in power in the 1930s I can imagine him returning from Germany waving a piece of paper and talking about peace in our time.

You support Hamas, I don't support you.

Have you forgotten the several times the tories met with the IRA on many occasions over the years?

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have you forgotten the several times the tories met with the IRA on many occasions over the years?

Link or photos please...or do we just have to believe corbyn?

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Link or photos please...or do we just have to believe corbyn?

Tories met for peace talks.
In December 1993 PM John Major issued the joint declaration of peace ( commonly known as The Downing Street declaration).
Whereas Corbyn and his cronies were supporting the IRA, rather than any interest in peace, they were against it, wanting the unification of Ireland.
As the IRA were bombing innocent people in England as well as Northern Ireland I would say that it was quite traitorous.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Have we ever not been in business with the suadis the last 50 yrs?

I did say presently it's a Conservative govt doing so.
Nowhere did I say we hadn't been doing business over the decades.

I'd rather no UK govt did.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Have you forgotten the several times the tories met with the IRA on many occasions over the years?

Oh Kizzy, now being Cons,that would be legitimate all through no matter a good or bad reason,you should know that.

It's only wrong when Labour politicians do so and it also seems its known even what a Labour politician talked about as some people will state it was only for negative reasons.

If the Cons talk to dubious organisations or dubious leaders that has to be seen as only positive. Labour only have a bad or negative agenda.

Good grief, it gets more ridiculous by the minute.
I don't know why you waste your time trying to reason
I've given up totally as to that myself..
Good luck though,I admire your determination.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Oh Kizzy, now being Cons,that would be legitimate all through no matter a good or bad reason,you should know that.

It's only wrong when Labour politicians do so and it also seems its known even what a Labour politician talked about as some people will state it was only for negative reasons.

If the Cons talk to dubious organisations or dubious leaders that has to be seen as only positive. Labour only have a bad or negative agenda.

Good grief, it gets more ridiculous by the minute.
I don't know why you waste your time trying to reason
I've given up totally as to that myself..
Good luck though,I admire your determination.

Met with and support are two different things. Corbyn has often demonstrated support of various terrorist groups which is a whole new ball game.

[Kizzy]

'Pakistan-born British citizen Butt, 27, had previously appeared in a Channel 4 documentary called The Jihadi Next Door and was known to police and MI5.'


What other evidence do they need to monitor someone? :/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7774516.html

[Kizzy]

Officer numbers

'According to the most recent official Home Office figures, the total police officer workforce for England and Wales in September 2016 was 122,859. (Policing in Scotland is devolved and Northern Ireland has special arrangements).

In September 2010, the year the Coalition took power, the figure was 141,850.'

Firearms officers,

'Separate Home Office data shows there were 5,639 Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) in March 2016, down from 6,976 in March 2010.

That's a fall of 1,337, or 19 per cent'


Spending,

'according to the official Treasury data, the Home Office's overall budget fell from £12.6bn in 2011-12 to £10.9bn in 2015-16.

This represents a real terms cut of 18 per cent.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7773746.html

[Kizzy]

Is this Theresa May actually admitting she is funding terrorism?

'May says 'tough conversations' are required with Saudi Arabia over funding of extremists

In an interview with Sky News, Theresa May was asked whether she would be willing to be a “difficult woman” in terms of challenging Saudi Arabia over its funding for extremists. She replied:

Tough conversations are required over this whole issue of financing of the terrorists and the financing of extremism ... We need to have tough conversations with whoever we need to have those conversations with.'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mment-99828597

[Tom4784]

Theresa May was a failure as the Home Secretary and she is failing as PM. Both the Manchester and one of the London terrorists were known as a potential threat by the authorities and it's a mix of cuts to public services and the fact that anti-terrorism organisations and hotlines aren't working (probably also due to a lack of funding).

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Theresa May was a failure as the Home Secretary and she is failing as PM. Both the Manchester and one of the London terrorists were known as a potential threat by the authorities and it's a mix of cuts to public services and the fact that anti-terrorism organisations and hotlines aren't working (probably also due to a lack of funding).

It's also the fault of the terrorists! Lets not forget that small crucial point!

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It's also the fault of the terrorists! Lets not forget that small crucial point!

I didn't think such an obvious thing needed to be but thank you for stating the bleeding ****ing obvious?

Quite an underhanded tactic to try to make me look like I'm shifting blame away from the terrorists. Quite vile.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It's also the fault of the terrorists! Lets not forget that small crucial point!

It's been said today,no matter how many police are on hand they would have been no quicker than the response to the last London attack,it's not always about numbers but efficiency,and I do think we need to get tougher on these people,THEY are the ones who want to kill,lock them up,shoot them,or deport.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I didn't think such an obvious thing needed to be but thank you for stating the bleeding ****ing obvious?

Quite an underhanded tactic to try to make me look like I'm shifting blame away from the terrorists. Quite vile.

Well it does seem many are trying to blame everyone but those most at fault. No one is denying other factors may contribute but at the end of the day the monsters here are the terrorists themselves.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Well it does seem many are trying to blame everyone but those most at fault. No one is denying other factors may contribute but at the end of the day the monsters here are the terrorists themselves.

Of course they aren't... :/ Nobody has said or even implied that.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Well it does seem many are trying to blame everyone but those most at fault. No one is denying other factors may contribute but at the end of the day the monsters here are the terrorists themselves.

Well no, if you actually read what has been said, people aren't saying that it isn't the terrorists' fault, it is their fault but underfunding and a lack of action when it comes to known individuals enabled these attacks to happen instead of being prevented.

That is completely obvious to anyone and you know that but you wanted to 'subtly' make out that anyone critiscing the lack of funding are basically terrorist sympathisers.

[Vicky.]

Of course she is useless. her standing saying 'we are too tolerant of extremism' was quite funny tbh as its her admitting her government, and specifically herself (even as home secretary, this was kinda her area...) are bad at their jobs. Infact I read what was supposed to be a satirical article yesterday that actually is 100% the truth..and will explain my post for me rather than me writing pretty much the same thing out again

http://newsthump.com/2017/06/05/uk-h...kle-terrorism/

The UK hasn’t done enough to tackle terrorist extremists in the UK, according to the woman responsible for doing just that for the last six years.

Prime Minister Theresa May took the unprecedented step of attacking her own track record in tackling extremism when talking the reporters today.

She told the press, “The UK has not done enough to defeat extremism, and I should know because it was very specifically my job.

“When I say we haven’t done enough, I can be sure I’m correct in that assessment because everything we did for the last six years in trying to tackle extremism went across my desk as Home Secretary, and was specifically approved by me.

“So when I say we haven’t done enough, I am basically saying I was a bit **** at my job for quite a number of years.

“That’s how confident I am about this election; I can openly admit I did a bad job, but you lot will still vote for me because Jeremy Corbyn looks a bit awkward in a suit.

“Wonderful, isn’t it?”

I think the Tories will keep her until the Brexit deal and then oust her. Everyone knows that we are going to get a bad deal and its going to cost a bunch of money that apparently we don't have (remember, no unicorns farting bank notes, yadayada yada), the Tories don't really want that on their record so they let her sort it all..then there will 100% be a leadership challenge to distance the Tory party from the cluster**** that Brexit will be. They can then always blame Cameron for the vote, and May for '****ing up negotiations'

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Livia

People who don't support the Tories are not going to think Theresa May is very good, and all those who feel the same will support them. Meanwhile, the alternative is terrorist-appeasing Corbyn. If Corbyn had been in power in the 1930s I can imagine him returning from Germany waving a piece of paper and talking about peace in our time.

You support Hamas, I don't support you.

I don't support the Tories but praised Cameron on numerous occasions

Not everyone has to believe that whichever party they support is absolutely perfect and never gets anything wrong whilst the ones they do not support get nothing right EVER!!!!1111!!!!

But honestly, May is NOT very good. She was bad as home secretary and shes even worse as PM. I don't blame her for being bad at being PM. If she had taken it in her own time she could maybe have been much better, but she was kind of forced into it by Camerons cowardice.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It's been said today,no matter how many police are on hand they would have been no quicker than the response to the last London attack,it's not always about numbers but efficiency,and I do think we need to get tougher on these people,THEY are the ones who want to kill,lock them up,shoot them,or deport.

It is in part about numbers and the Police say they need more.
What with reduced numbers could be the situation if several areas of London or across the UK were hit at the same time.

Do you still think much greater numbers would not be an advantage to have in that scenario. Or can you guarantee such attacks can only happen at one place at a time.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It's been said today,no matter how many police are on hand they would have been no quicker than the response to the last London attack,it's not always about numbers but efficiency,and I do think we need to get tougher on these people,THEY are the ones who want to kill,lock them up,shoot them,or deport.

No. London is heavily policed despite cuts. I don't think more police would have made much difference. And the response time was bloody impressive. 8 minutes from call to having them down is fantastic.

If the next attack is in Durham for example. The response time would be nowhere near as impressive. Not even sure if we have an armed unit up here but when someone was stabbed not long ago, it took the normal police 20 bloody minutes to show up. By which time the person obviously had got away. Imagine how much carnage there would have been if it had taken police even half of that just to show up

People keep saying the chief of Met Police did a TV interview claiming that the police have everything they need to deal with attacks. Do you really think someone like that would go on TV and tell the country that they don't?

Cuts do make a difference. I am aghast to see people actually trying to make out cuts to the police force of 20k is irrelevant to the countries safety.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Is this Theresa May actually admitting she is funding terrorism?

'May says 'tough conversations' are required with Saudi Arabia over funding of extremists

In an interview with Sky News, Theresa May was asked whether she would be willing to be a “difficult woman” in terms of challenging Saudi Arabia over its funding for extremists. She replied:

Tough conversations are required over this whole issue of financing of the terrorists and the financing of extremism ... We need to have tough conversations with whoever we need to have those conversations with.'

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mment-99828597

Really?! She has now admitted that Corbyn was correct? He said this days and days ago...back when her response to the London attack was 'tightening internet regulations' (which was conveniently, in the Tory manifesto and something May has wanted to do for YEARS) as if ISIS and their ilk communicate on your average household connection.

She did say tough conversations were to be had IIRC. But did not say with the Saudis. I am actually really surprised that she has said this and been honest that our arms deals with the Saudis are basically, funding terrorism instead of trying to cover it up like the former plan obviously was. Good on her.

[DemolitionRed]

Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says Unicef.

The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to us.

The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi (The Manchester bomber) on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?

Here is the whole article http://johnpilger.com/articles/terro...-minister-know

[DemolitionRed]

As for underfunding the very things that could protect us, the Tories did this last year.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3265156.html

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

As for underfunding the very things that could protect us, the Tories did this last year.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-a3265156.html

It was decided to switch off after a meeting with the mayor.