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/

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

No, I think she should employ enough police officers and intelligence experts and tell them to focus on people who say they want to kill us.

Rather than telling the intelligence services to focus on innocent members of the public and green activists.

Is that too much to ask?

She stands a better chance than Corbyn who wants to make this country "open house" to all and sundry and will allow more and more of these people in who hates us but love our benefit system.

'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.'

This! . TM has probably been exasperated as the rest of us, sadly she doesn't make the judicial rules, didn't you know that? but unlike JC and Abbott I think in light of recent events there will be a push to kick people out with dual nationalities and lock up those that are proud of their extremist views.

I don't think the PM of Britain can solve the worldwide terrorist network! Whoever it may be!
I do think it's time to address the law with a view to making access to or seeking out ANY radicalism is an offence. It should result in instant jail time (solitary) and then deportation for foreign nationals with a lifetime ban on returning to UK soil. We as a country are too soft! The whole social sector needs a huge influx of funds. It's seriously crumbling and the police are amazing people but they are just that people complete with limits.

Piglet - thanks for the reply. Best wishes to your nephew.

Of course it is the terrorists who are ultimately responsible. But if you read the front cover of the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun or Times, you could be forgiven for thinking it was actually Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn who were actually responsible. And Theresa May is doing her best to feed that impression.

Which is both dishonest and an abdication of her own responsibility in her current and previous roles.

'Rather than telling the intelligence services to focus on innocent members of the public and green activists'

Is that you Jeremy?

MaybeNextWeek -

"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"

You can't make thoughtcrime a criminal offence. It's not practical - who knows what views people secretly hold?

But you certainly can and should make it an offence to publicly espouse those views. And you don't get much more public than a TV programme.

Why hasn't May tried to bring in any laws like this in her 7 years on the job, if she's so committed?

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

Again, not true. Parliament (through legislation) sets the parameters of the security services ambit and provides the powers they can use. Like the police, they have operational independence: ministers cannot tell the security services who to track / investigate / disrupt. The only role that a minister has in operational issues to sign (or refuse to sign) warrants providing authorisation for the most intrusive forms of surveillance, such as intercepting phone calls, or imposing restrictive measures on individuals. The MI5 website sets it out quite clearly

As repeatedly said, I'm no particular fan of Corbyn, and this thread isn't about him, it's about May.

Why do people keep trying to avoid talking about May's record? Corbyn wasn't the one who had been Home Sec for 6 years and then PM for a year. He wasn't in a position to do anything on this. May was. Blaming him seems a particularly stupid ad hominem.

Who are these 'innocent members of the public' and 'green activists' TM is telling the intelligence service to focus on?

I am not convinced there was anything TM could have done to stop the recent attacks. To say there was just seems to be cheap political point scoring.

But between her and Corbyn there is no contest, TM wins every time. Corbyns record over decades is just scary.

It's not the PM's job to tell the Security Services who to focus on (thankfully - can you not see the problem with the executive having those sorts of powers?)

And I think you are confusing police undercover investigations of green activists with the activities conducted by the security services

'Why hasn't May tried to bring in any laws like this in her 7 years on the job, if she's so committed'

because it is only in recent days/weeks that we have been allowed to say Islamist extremists are usually always responsible. Someone always pipes up with Breivik or jo Cox's murderer and its islamophobia etc etc, but now the penny seems to have dropped with the lefties, perhaps TM will be able to force some legislation through to make it a crime to be a jihadi returning from Syria spouting hate.

OlennasWimple - the government - very recently - brought in laws that vastly expanded the workload for the intelligence agencies, by forcing them to track millions of entirely innocent people on top of a relatively small number of extremely violent, radicalised people.

Why did she decide to do that, if she knew we didn't have enough money to track the violent criminals in the first place?

It's not as though she didn't know there wasn't enough money and hat it would harm our national security - she was told so, repeatedly, by the security chiefs.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/06/police-cuts-hit-uk-fight-against-terrorism-says-former-security-chief

Why did she choose to ignore this and to prioritise austerity over security?

That was a choice. Made by May alone. Against the advice of the professionals. The responsibility is hers.

But if you want to get into the undercover policing scandal, you should bear in mind that it had been going on for a long time but it was TM who ordered a judge-led inquiry into the issue

MaybeNextWeek - eh?

So are you now saying that the neo-Nazi who murdered Jo Cox was actually a Muslim??

Or that her murder somehow doesn't matter?

Sorry - I don't think I understand your point.

Could you make it more explicit, please?

because it is only in recent days/weeks that we have been allowed to say Islamist extremists are usually always responsible

That is certainly not true.

OP - please explain what you mean by "the government - very recently - brought in laws that vastly expanded the workload for the intelligence agencies, by forcing them to track millions of entirely innocent people on top of a relatively small number of extremely violent, radicalised people."

The security services are not being "forced" to do anything. They have been given tools to do their job more effectively because they have asked for them and Parliament has agreed to give them those tools

Lweji - indeed.

Looking forward to hearing about how the guy who murdered Jo Cox, Breivik, the neo-Nazi who murdered two in Portland last week etc were all really Muslims.

Still, I suppose it makes a change from them all being Zionists, eh?

Or maybe MaybeNextWeek thinks it was all a conspiracy of Zionist Muslims??

I don't know OP.I do know that 3 attacks in 6 months is a lot. I would love to know what those in intelligence thought. Whether they think that Theresa May could have done more

OlennasWimple -

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11974112/New-spying-powers-to-be-unveiled-by-Theresa-May-live.html

"Theresa May: Internet data will be recorded under new spy laws

Home Secretary sets out new spying laws which will force internet firms to help spies to hack into computers "

Surely you can figure out that spies who are busy hacking into your computer have less time to spend tracking actual, real terrorists.

It infuriates me that May is presenting security issues as if it was her winning suit, her really strong point, when she has demonstrably failed to prevent terror attacks multiple times.

I have no idea what the solutions are - but whatever they are, Theresa May clearly has no idea either.

Or she would have done them by now.

'So are you now saying that the neo-Nazi who murdered Jo Cox was actually a Muslim??'

What? No. I am saying that when people have previously said Islamist extremists are the more prolific problem and therefore there needs to be a judicial process in place regarding, for example, those returning from Syria, lefties bleated its islamophobia to blame all terrorism on islamists, they say stuff like 'look at neo Nazis!'

'by forcing them to track millions of entirely innocent people on top of a relatively small number of extremely violent, radicalised people.'

As your point ^ proves. No, some 'entirely innocent people' just haven't killed anybody yet.

I reiterate my point that I don't think that you really understand what you are talking about, OP.

The article that you have linked to starts off by making clear that any computer hacking has to be approved through a warrant signed by a secretary of state and (except in urgent cases) approved by a judge. In order to pass the test for the warrant to be signed, the security services need to make the case that the individual in question is believed to pose a threat to the security of the UK. They are not allowed to go on "fishing expeditions" (that is, having a look at someone that they think might be a bit dodgy in the hope that they find something incriminating), they have to have evidence to prove that they have met the legal threshold for taking the action. The MI5 website has links to both the legislation and code of practice for interception.

In short, MI5 haven't been given powers to start hacking into millions of innocent people's computers on a whim. There aren't hundreds of spooks being taken off the streets to sit behind a desk and rummage around all our computers.

My understanding was that the police went undercover following and incendiary device in Debenhams stores, their actions thereafter were indefensible however as stated TM launched the enquiry . We are living in very uncertain times and also have the added issue of playing the race card at every opportunity. I, as a white middle aged woman am sick to death of getting stopped and searched "randomly" at an airport whilst a group of women in burkas stroll by. I'm not saying they are going to cause a problem but statistically they are more likely. This I believe they call profiling and we mustn't do this anymore... in addition to my whiteness I am also Irish and a catholic so during the 80s felt a little conspicuous.... I do not see colour - I would think Diane Abbott incompetent whatever she looks like - indeed I think Emily thornberry is a loon. Boris is bonkers despite the fact he is a man. TM had done her best in the current environment, with 3 attacks in 3months she now needs to do more than her best I only hope she gets the chance