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/

OlennasWimple -

No, it is you who misunderstand the role of the security services.

Fat lot of good it does us for the security services to be able to trawl everyone's records after an attack.

What they're supposed to be doing is focusing on preventing attacks.

And they can do that far more effectively by targeting limited resources on the key, dangerous individuals rather than farting around getting lost looking at your internet history, say.

Of course I would be

I asked if you "were".

DA would be our home secretary if labour got in lweji. The position the OP is referring to in his '7 years' comment about TM.

Yes it is more than controlling speech. Obviously. It is where ideology and hate stems from though, so to control that would be useful and not something we should accept as free speech and political opinions.

You are vastly underestimating the power of personal contact and the dark Web.

Laiste - this is mumsnet, not Conservative Central Office.

I'm a 'she' not a 'he'.

The default here is 'she'.

DA would be our home secretary if labour got in lweji

Are you Corbyn?
If he wins he can choose whoever he wants for the post.
Post that has limited powers set by the PM, who can replace the person when he/she wishes.

OTOH, if May wins she'll definitely be PM.

No contest for me. :)

'Did you ever to go to East Germany under Communism?I did. I had family there and visited several times. The Stasi's reach was far, far less than these laws allow.If that doesn't frighten you, you're either lying, unbelievably gullible or really, really stupid.'

What's your actual point? 'why didn't TM do more' you ask, then say 'theres going to be more surveillance! That's a bad thing! I went to east Germany and know about communism'

We either want TM and security services to do to more surveillance or we don't. Which was it you wanted again, I'm confused?

I'm neither lying, gullible or 'really really really really stupid' thanks.

What they're supposed to be doing is focusing on preventing attacks.

And they can do that far more effectively by targeting limited resources on the key, dangerous individuals rather than farting around getting lost looking at your internet history, say.

Absolutely!!!

MaybeNextWeek

Clearly the OP wants more surveillance of the people that are more likely to conduct crimes.

Not of the entire population.

'What they're supposed to be doing is focusing on preventing attacks.'

What, do you mean by doing more ermm, surveillance perhaps? or do you think the suspects walk round armed ready for thr extra police that you want on the streets to conveniently come across them?

Lweji - got it in a nutshell.

I'm going with lying here, for MaybeNextWeek. No-one can be that gullible.

MaybeNextWeek - did you miss the bit where one of the recent attackers appeared on national televesion to tell people he supported jihad?

Short of tattooing it on his forehead, how much more obvious can it be that this is a man who ought to be watched by the security services??

Nice cider, cant debate very well so you lower yourself to insults? well done.

I've had none stop insults aimed at me on this thread. I'm still here.

Some of them from you.

Try to address the issue. I see you've run out of arguments.

Maybe you'd like to explain why Theresa May is refusing to publish the report into Saudi's involvement in terrorism?

She claims to be keen to have 'embarrassing conversations' where necessary, to tackle terrorism.

So why not with UK terrorism's main funders?

Obviously I'm aware that the security service aim to prevent terror attacks . I missed a bit out from my post: it was supposed to say that the additional powers were intended to help them detect plans in advance, but if something slipped through the net, they would still be able to look at what happened. And also look at known associates who might also be planning forthcoming attacks.

Their remit is a bit more sophisticated than "stop terror attacks", however. C&P from the MI5 website summarises it well: The role of MI5, as defined in the Security Service Act 1989, is "the protection of national security and in particular its protection against threats such as terrorism, espionage and sabotage, the activities of agents of foreign powers, and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means"

An important part of their role is to provide evidence to the prosecuting authorities so that perpetrators can be brought to justice after committing a terrorist activity.

'I've had none stop insults aimed at me on this thread. I'm still here.Some of them from you.'
where? sorry yes I did say 'is that you Jeremy'. it was a joke, but I can see why you were insulted sorry.

'did you miss the bit where one of the recent attackers appeared on national televesion to tell people he supported jihad'

No. A I said previously people like Corbyn and his leftie followers have previously encouraged this 'free speech' and 'political opinions' so TM has had her hands ties with clamping down. Now perhaps she will be able to do more.

Oh look.

I mentioned Saudi and it's all gone quiet.

Come on then, May apologists - tell me why it's OK not to look into who funds terror in the UK.

MaybeNextWeek -

1. It has always been illegal to threaten to murder people in the UK. No new laws needed.

1. Saudi.

Tumbleweed...

for how long do you think someone who has publicly supported jihad should be "watched"? If years, how many? What about the other individuals who are involved in active attack planning? Should they not receive attention because of someone who said something years ago?

The security services have a rigorous process for assessing risk and allocating resources. They will be looking at whether they made a mistake in this case and what that means for future assessments. They can't commit to tailing everyone who has crossed their radar ever.

'did you miss the bit where one of the recent attackers appeared on national televesion to tell people he supported jihad'

No. A I said previously people like Corbyn and his leftie followers have previously encouraged this 'free speech' and 'political opinions' so TM has had her hands ties with clamping down. Now perhaps she will be able to do more.

You're missing the point that if there were more police officers and more funds and less garbage to sieve through, the police, under May's leadership could have dug up more on this guy and prevent this attack.

If you could arrest people from supporting jihad in public, they'd just shut up in public and carry out the same attacks.

But in the past 9 weeks 5 plots have been foiled. Obviously the amount of plots against us have ramped up. 5 in 9 weeks
I'd say that those in the know are obviously doing something right?
Things do have to change - how I don't know. Ultimately the HS is answerable to the PM so we don't know how many recommendations David Cameron knocked on the head when TM was HS.
Terrifies me the fact that DA and JC could be the people in charge of our country's security.

It wasn't once, years ago. It was 2 years ago on national TV, plus at least twice more reported by worried individuals who knew him. Plus associated with known high-risk figures.

Yes, I would absolutely expect someone like that to be a priority.

Wouldn't everyone?

Maybe you'd like to explain why Theresa May is refusing to publish the report into Saudi's involvement in terrorism?

Probably because it could be embarrassing for geo politics as a whole, we are not the only country to sell arms to SA, and it is not just SA that fund terrorism, neither is it a partisan issue.

I agree it stinks that it isn't released but there is no magic bullet in this scenario.

I am also against the curtailing of internet, how do you think people already pop up on lists as it is?

The security services have a rigorous process for assessing risk and allocating resources.

That's where May's reduced resources affects their capacity to prevent attacks.