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/

I am really concerned her main response is concerned with online security.

There is no evidence that any of the terrorists planned these attacks online, and all of the online investigations GCHQ undertook have failed to detect and prevent any attacks. These investigations were illegal, so she wants to introduce an Act to legalise this.

So, despite the police officers shooting dead the three attackers within 8 minutes, she thinks we don't need to replace the 19k officers we've lost from the streets (and another poster agrees we don't need more officers?) But instead we should force ISP's to store 6 months of browsing data of every individual which can be accessed with no warrant by GCHQ, even though the ISP's have said that it is practically impossible to store this volume of data.

It seems an extraordinary response, violating the privacy of every internet user in the country when people are stabbed and blown up, instead of paying for more policemen to stop it happening again.

Excellent post, Coffee.

Without being rude, OP, I really don't think you know what you are talking about.

No-one (including TM) has claimed that the current situation is perfect: the security services are conducting a review in Manchester, and will almost certainly do the same in relation to London. If there are lessons to be learnt, they will be, but we won't hear about them in the media because they are secret.

The Tories' USP has historically been that they are 'strong on terror' and 'strong on the police'. Well, this government is, like everything May does, weak as water.

Surely even traditional Tories - in fact, surely particularly traditional Tories - must be wondering what on earth is the purpose of the Conservative party and Theresa May?

The economy - about to fall off a cliff (so much for economic competence)
National security - 3 attacks in 3 months.

And Theresa May giving money hand over fist to the Saudis, the very people who bring this terror to the UK in the first place.

What's that all about then?

Coffee: all of the online investigations GCHQ undertook have failed to detect and prevent any attacks. This just isn't true

Without being rude, OP, I really don't think you know what you are talking about.

I agree and I am saying that as someone who's family has been effected by the attacks.

There were terrorist attacks pre-2010 you know - 7/7 and 21/7 to name just 2 that occurred in 2005
No-one knows how many terrorist attacks were thwarted before the latest 3 - be thankful that they were stopped.
Police on the beat cannot possibly protect every street and every venue but the rapid response on the latest attack suggests there were resources available when needed.
British subjects who have not yet committed any crime cannot be deported or arrested or tagged (remember the labour party's human rights act made it difficult to deport extremist preachers!)
Finally because of potential accusations of racism/islamophobia there is a reluctance to point the finger at any potential terrorist especially if there is no firm evidence to take the appropriate action.
There is no easy answer - we would vote for the party who is able to solve the problem but no party knows how best to tackle this without being accused of heavy-handedness.

Her statements about tightening internet security were described as 'bonkers' by some expert (I think it was on the BBC site).

OlennasWimple -

"If there are lessons to be learnt, they will be, but we won't hear about them in the media because they are secret."

More to the point, we won't hear about them before the election.

Yet a lot of people will be voting based on who they think has the best grip on security.

Theresa May is repeatedly trying to claim this is her. Part of that claim is her attacking Corbyn. But that doesn't justify her own past decisions - saying 'but his were even worse' doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Clearly there are some people on this thread who are happy with May on this. I want them to explain why that is.

Piglet - I saw you saying your nephew was it? had been affected. Hope he's now OK.

So tell me honestly, if you feel that May provides the answers, or the best answers, why you think that.

I would love to feel someone had a grip on the situation. Right now, I don't feel confident May does.

Olennas it is true.

Terrorists tend to use the dark web or less traceable communications, for example blackberry messenger was used in one event for the terrorists to communicate with each other.

GCHQ monitor social media accounts, emails, standards communications which are easily hackable. Any terrorist planning an event using their Gmail account would be noticed straight away.

But they don't use the means of communication normal people do to discuss terrorism, because they know they will be caught, so storing six months of every normal law abiding person's internet history does no good whatsoever to prevent terrorism.

Piglet - I saw you saying your nephew was it? had been affected. Hope he's now OK.

Yes. He is getting there but it is going to be a very long road for him.

So tell me honestly, if you feel that May provides the answers, or the best answers, why you think that.

I don't think she has all the answers no and I certainly dont think Corbyn does. (I am in the will probably will spoil ballot paper camp at the moment)

It is a very complex matter. The services are never going to tell you everything they do or no and imo they shouldn't.

It isn't as easy as 'following' people if they are suspected. There are international, national and human right laws and procedures that they have to adhere to.

I don't think the blame game helps. It is the terrorists that are ultimately responsible and them alone.

The services, police etc have to be right all the time. The terrorists only once.

Today 15:25 ciderinsideher

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?

Not wanting to minimize what happened but I expect that the intelligent services are working on and stopping a lot of much bigger terror plots.

I know she was frustrated and thwarted at every turn over Abu Hamza. I know at other points she has been frustrated by the human rights lawyers trying to contain the spread of extremism on our streets.

I agree we need to put all this into perspective with how many atrocities have been prevented. I hope she wins the election and gets the powers she needs to stop these mad men

What do you think she should do, ban hire van rentals and kitchen knives?

what on earth do our intelligent services do

Your post not mine.

Sounds critical to me

'Today we were unlucky. But remember we only have to be lucky once -- you will have to be lucky all the time.' - the IRA in their statement claiming responsibility for the 1984 Brighton bombing

'There is no evidence that any of the terrorists planned these attacks online'

Are you in MI5? if not how on earth do you know this ^

'she's been in charge for a year.Why didn't she make those changes then'

A lot of people have been in denial about Islamist extremists and tip toed around it. TM's hands have been tied to a degree, look what a carry on it was to kick that hook handed hate preacher out. When there was the Westminster attack we even had a longwinded thread about 'how do we know he's an Islamist terrorist just because he's ran people over at an iconic site and stabbed a policeman' .

People seem more ready to accept the answer lies in stamping out and not tolerating extremism rather than employing 10000 more police to wander the streets in the hope they catch an attack as it happens.

piglet all the best to him

Op you vote for the party leader who wanted to disband MI5 that's a good idea isn't it.

My first ever for you OP

waitforitdear - the security services don't set the limits of their agenda - government does.

They don't decide how many people they have working for them - government does.

I would probably blame human rights lawyers and activists more than TM. It's nearly impossible to deport extremists due to all the red tape and appeals. The same goes for locking up hate preachers.

'I can't be the only person wondering why on earth the nutters responsible weren't being rigorously tracked'

because apparently having different views isn't a crime even when its vile hate speech. Look at that programme 'the jihadi next door' it was even on channel 4. They need to make it an offence to hold views like that

If they are under surveillance and searched routinely there's cries of harassment from lefties and 'its a free country'.

Oh, and I probably won't be voting Labour, so not quite sure what your post meant there. But as I already said, not for security reasons but other reasons.

I don't really see why this makes May less crap on security.