WTF??

Yes he did, in 2015: he said he is "not happy" with letting Britain's security services adopt a “shoot-to-kill policy” if terrorists were loose in the UK.
He said he thought the policy could be “quite dangerous" and “counterproductive”, warning that it could lead to “war on the streets”.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

It is important to identify the reasons that these fascists flourish here. I don't see how you are showing respect by trying to shut down debate.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Yes, of course your are right. I think what he said shows what a weak leader he will be if he wins on Thursday.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

A lot of what Corbyn says gets twisted. The shoot to kill policy is obviously correct when people are in immediate danger, which is what corbyn said.

However, he merely suggested that it's best for this scum to face the justice of our law courts. Why? Well firstly they want to die. Why give them the satisfaction? Secondly, they hold out justice in contempt. This scum being sent down by a jury which contains women would absolutely crush them.

It's like when corbyn was criticised for saying it would have been better to arrest Bin Laden. The bloodthirsty were frothing at the mouth with rage but there's no doubt, in terms of punishment Bin Laden would have hated being put in front of judge and jury more than dying.

It comes down to justice. If you feel killing a suicide bomber is 'justice' then think carefully about their title - suicide bomber. The attackers last night knew the fake explosives would increase the likelihood of them being taken out. Sadly, they will never get their day in court although the police were absolutely right to take the course of action they did.

laddo

"People say, live fast, die young. I say live fast, die old. That's me, the non-conformist".
David Brent.

Well what I read was someone insinuating that if the opposition to his party was in charge everything would be a lot worse because the police would've supposedly just let them run riot. Doesn't sound at all to me like "discussing the reasons", more like "political point scoring", using a terrorist attack to do so immediately after it is pretty low imo.

Edited by Mstrobez (04 Jun 2017 8.44am)

We're the Arthur over ere!