to wonder how anyone could think Theresa May is the best person to solve the terrorist problem when she's just failed to do that for the last 7 years?

[ciderinsideher]

I simply don't understand how she can stand there after 3 terrorist attacks in short succession and say 'Trust me. I'll make sure there is no problem with terrorism' - when we can all see that she's been in power for 7 years, first as Home Secretary in charge of policing (cut the police force by 20,000 officers) and now as Prime Minister, and totally failed to do that?

Claiming Corbyn would be worse is a bit irrelevant - maybe he would be, maybe he wouldn't, but at least he'd fund the police properly.

I simply can't think of one single reason to believe that the Tories have a ruddy clue on security.

Newsthump puts it well:

newsthump.com/2017/06/05/uk-hasnt-done-enough-to-tackle-terrorism-says-woman-whose-job-it-was-to-tackle-terrorism/

There is more to be done and her record isn't perfect at all.

But did you bother to read up on how many attacks have been prevented? Pretty poor not to take that account too.

Well, I'm sure that's a great comfort to the families and victims of those attacked this time.

I can't be the only person wondering why on earth the nutters responsible weren't being rigorously tracked. What on earth do our intelligence services do that is more important that following people who have announced they are terrorists on national television and been reported multiple times, including by foreign intelligence agencies?

What on earth is going on?

I am sure everyone's thoughts just like mine are with the victims and families but if we are deemed to be callus by not agreeing with you then what is the point of this thread if you shoot down any difference in opinion OP with that low shot.

'Low shot'? What an unfortunate metaphor.

Which one, precisely?

Interesting first posts OP.

Have a

I would much rather not be discussing this, but given that Theresa May chose - in incredibly bad taste, having announced she would suspend campaigning after the attacks - to instead make a speech attacking Jeremy Corbyn and Labour's supposed positions on terror, then the points that she made need to be examined.

She's largely abandoned her claims that we ought to voting on Brexit because we already did that and she's found people are actually more interested in voting on security issues, given recent events.

So those of you who will be supporting May because you agree with her on this, please tell me why and how.

Piglet - I've been posting on MN since 2005, and under this email address since MN got hacked. So nice try, but no biscuit required.

Looking forward to serious answers to a very serious question.

cider ..please could you define ' solve the terrorist problem' and is it reasonable to think one person leading one country can 'solve' a problem that is multi factorial , accross borders and societies, religions and cultures....it really is too simple to think or suggest that one person will solve this.
not to mention the fact that 20,000 police offices more or not would not have stopped terrorism.
Our security services do amazing work and stop so many plots/plans/groups etc everyday...no matter what party or who wins on thursday , they and there policies cannot 'solve' this

Sorry cider. You've got to do better than that if you want people to engage in debate with you.

Bye.

I namechange regularly, so my username is new. But first post - ha ha.

theredjellybean - agree with you 100%.

One person cannot remotely 'solve' terror. Yet May is claiming we should vote for her because she can - or can do it better than Corbyn, anyway.

It is that claim I am querying.

Corbyn has voted against 17 anti-terror laws and abstained from some votes, as has his choice for Home Sec.

May wanted to be tougher as a Home Sec but wasn't supported by Cameron. Now she's in charge she can make changes.

Dandan - so I take it you have no answer then?

I don't think there IS an answer. I think her claims to be the solution are ridiculous.

Yet she continues to make them.

cider ...'rigorously tracked'....did you know there are currently 23,000 people of interest on the security services 'radar'....this includes people like one of the london attackers...people who may have expressed views at some point or been at a mosque or meeting group known to hold radicalised views...but they cannot all be vigoruously tracked as you suggest.. that would just not be feasible .
there are 3000 individuals who are deemed a higher risk or of more interest and these are watched more closely, none of the attackers of recent times were on that 3000 list.

dotandstripe - she's been in charge for a year.

Why didn't she make those changes then? Why didn't she make them as Home Secretary for 6 years?

You can hardly blame Corbyn for that.

And this thread's not really about Corbyn - I'm no particular fan of Corbyn for unrelated reasons. I just see May getting away with making ridiculous claims.

And I think they should be challenged.

I couldn't agree more.

She has had over 6 years as home secratary and 1 full year as PM to make the changes.

The security services who are accountable to her failed in protecting the public from what we were now know were well known extremists, reported to the Police many times be fellow Muslims. There should be an independent enquiry as to how and why three people were missed, given one was on a channel 4 documentary praising and supporting Isis. How could this man not have been under surveillance?!

Your post is pretty ridiculous as no one person can solve terrorism.

The savages were shot dead in 8 minutes.

What would you suggest internment?

Good luck with labours promises of more police on the beat and those figures by Dianne.

Corbyn and Abbott called for MI5 to be abolished and that any victory of the IRA against the state, that's you and us by the way, was a victory for freedom.

If you vote for them you must be insane.

@redjellybean

There may be 3,000 on the list, but less than 50 of those have publicly declared support for Isis. Is it just not understandable why this person who had publicly declared support for Isis and had been reported many times to the Police was not under any type of surveillance?!

theredjellybean - if the problem is lack of resources, that begs 2 questions:

1. Why don't we increase the resources? What are we spending the money on that's more important? Why are we cutting corporation tax or raising inheritance tax, say, rather than this?

1. Why did May recently pass laws meaning that the securiy services now have to waste time and resources collecting the internet, phone etc records of every single one of us? Why are resources being wasted on tracking the vast, entirely peaceful majority, when the nutters responsible have all been reported multiple times and even shouted about it on the telly?

Why was (presumably lots of) money spent on infiltrating green groups (and illegally having sex with and even marrying the women in them) when the number of treehuggers who murder people is zero? What kind of weird priorities do the Tories have that don't involve focusing on people who have claimed to support suicide bombers?

Love how people insult and criticise the security services who daily risk their lives for you.

Those criticising are just the types to run for the hills in a terror attack while they would run to help protect us.

Shame on you.

Love how people insult and criticise the security services who daily risk their lives for you.

Those criticising are just the types to run for the hills in a terror attack while they would run to help protect us.

Shame on you.

And furthermore, why were these people not reported to Prevent, and de-radicalised by organisations who support Prevent, like Inspire and Quillam?

waitforitfdear - I am NOT criticising the security services.

I AM criticising the person who gives the security services their orders and controls their resources.

Why did Theresa May choose to reduce police numbers, which the former head of the Met have specifically said meant that people were moved away from intelligence work, this cutting numbers able to track terrorists?