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/

Ciderinsideher The Stasi didn't have the internet though did they, or the telecoms that we have today. I bet you were on a watch list though from both sides.

He did not oppose a shoot to kill policy in the context of a terrorist incident Your right he didn't, that was disgraceful journalism.

His comments were just after 2 men in Paris had killed 130 human beings and it was feared the terrorists were still at large. When he said he was "not happy" with letting Britain's security services adopt a “shoot-to-kill policy” if terrorists were loose in the UK. He said it could be “quite dangerous" and “counterproductive”, warning that it could lead to “war on the streets”

Yes it was shocking journalism to paraphrase him as being against shoot to kill for terrorists.

Oh right it's a manipulation of the right wing press argument again.

Yes op is May not doing enough or doing too much?

Have you been getting 'ill' with Dianne again

'Yes op is May not doing enough or doing too much? Have you been getting 'ill' with Dianne again'

Sorry I got to this part and had to comment:

She's the Prime Minister - if she doesn't make the laws, who does?

Are you actually serious OP?

The PM put forward their legislative programme as heavily advised by their aides, ministers and senior civil servants. The relevant government department will then work closely with the government's dedicated team of legislative drafters to produce a draft that is introduced into Parliament. It then undergoes a hell of a lot of scrutiny and rewriting to reach Royal Assent - if it even does. Do you actually think the PM can just make their own laws?

As for the Investigatory Powers Act, it does not force intellgience services to spy on everyone. Fucking hell. It is simply a massive expansion of powers of what they CAN do. Which everyone kicked off about at the time, but funnily enough you're now saying May isn't doing enough to find the terrorists?!

The thing is, just screening emails is not the whole issue. Police need to be embedded in communities. They need resources for this.

WalkingOnLegO and others, let's discuss the issues and different possible approaches to this, but based on facts and not misreported news. www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour

swirlywind I dont think you have actually watched the full interview. Corbyn did actually said those things, no one made them up. Your trying to pretend the past didn't exist.

The BBC trust didn't say the interview was made up, it was ruling on a specific incidence of framing an extract of it on a specific program.

It still stands that Corbyn was against a shoot to kill policy in the aftermath of 130 human beings being killed by terrorists.

So - kids fed. And...

Looking forward to hearing someone who thinks Theresa May's claims to be the best person to be in charge of national security...despite the fact that she refuses to publish an investigation into Saudi's funding of UK terrorists.

How can she stand there and say she thinks we should have 'embarrassing conversations' with people to prevent terrorism, and yet refuse to have those conversations with Saudi?

How do you know she isn't having those conversations with Saudi?
And what difference do you think it would make it it was someone else doing the talking?

She can't even say 'exactly'
No woman's mangled a word so comprehensively on C4 since Supernanny.

The argument - as I understand it - is that if we don't continue to enjoy a decent relationship with the Saudis, they will stop sharing information and intelligence with us, which in turn increases the risk of a successful terrorist attack against us.

I don't know the ins and outs of the report, but she can't publish the report whilst Parliament is prorogued (assuming that it is going to be laid before Parliament, if only to enjoy the protections that that confers)

'Looking forward to hearing someone who thinks Theresa May's claims to be the best person to be in charge of national security'

There's been 7 pages of people's thoughts and contributions, just not everyone agreeing with you.

Can you answer the pp who wanted you to clarify your 'why doesn't TM do anything/I don't want to her to do anything new' stance?

Whose fault was it in 2005 by the way?

ciderinsideher

She's the Prime Minister - if she doesn't make the laws, who does?

Surely you don't think TM makes her own laws, do you?! - NO one is that naive/silly to think that.

And if you don't like May for whatever reason, then just don't vote for the tories - easy. Don't know why you think people have to give you reasons as to why they think TM is the best person to be in charge of National Security. Anyone is better than DA! Bizarre thread.

WalkingOnLego I am not trying to pretend anything, the complaint upheld against LK states he was answering a different question, about shoot to kill as a general policy, and not in response to Paris-type attack. In fact, it states his response to that question in the interview was not used in the programme. The UK does not currently have a shoot to kill policy I believe. As a general policy it refers to killing suspects who might be planning an attack, without attempting to arrest them/put them on trial, as alleged in Northern Ireland, rather than an immediate emergency. It appears that is the distinction that caused the problem in the LK interview. My point is that one can hold different opinions on whether Labour/Tories/ whoever are more capable of handling a given problem, but let's do it on the basis of accurate reporting.

The argument - as I understand it - is that if we don't continue to enjoy a decent relationship with the Saudis, they will stop sharing information and intelligence with us, which in turn increases the risk of a successful terrorist attack against us.

That's what i have gleamed from various sources, the fact they are an ally in the region, we don't want another iraq on our hands, the fact that Saudi are fighting against isis in syria and we are not the only country to sell weapons to them means its a convoluted mess that cannot be magically stopped by turning down ~1bn arms sales (even though i think we should)

IMO, what seems slightly ironic is that the a vocal "left wing" voice has recently risen up extolling our apparent soft power internationally and have yet spent years saying we are insignificant on the world stage, not to mention the doublethink going on because its an attack on "muh evil tories" because we are not the police state we should be.

'Im confused. Op seems to want to blame TM for not doing 'enough' to stop recent Islamic terrorism but complains and is against new powers to enable TM to stop future Islamic radicalization / terrorism'

Nothing to be confused about.

She wants powers to have normal citizens under surveillance, while not ensuring the resources to keep an eye on criminals using actual police methods.

Even if those powers are acceptable, they mean fuck all if the resources to use them properly are not in place.

I.e. May is trying to encroach on civil liberties while just paying lip service to the actual fight against terrorism.

If you think being able to check your emails will save you from a terrorist plot devised by a small group of men who meet each other regularly, you are seriously deluded.

Jean Charles de Menezes' shooting is still a good argument against a blank shoot to kill policy.

Surely nobody wants more innocent deaths than those caused by the actual terrorists.

Does anyone?

Lweji - well said.

Some really bizarre posts on here while I've been away.

No idea why everyone keeps trying to turn a thread about what Theresa May has said/done/promised into one about what Jeremy Corbyn has said/done/promised.

As I've repeatedly said, I won't be voting Labour either, for other reasons. But 'Jeremy Corbyn is crap' is not an argument that proves Theresa May isn't crap. It's even possible they are both crap.

However, the difference is that Theresa May has - rather distastefully tried to focus the election on issues of security since Saturday night's attack.

And aside from the fact that I don't think anyone should be doing that, she of all people has blatantly no claim to be strong on security issues.

The Tories used to be the party of law and order. Now they're the party of cuts in the police (even Thatcher was never that stupid), and of sucking up to dangerous dictators like Erdogan, Trump and Saudis.

Re Theresa May makes her own laws - she leads a government that presents its list of bills it wants to make into law. And usually the vast majority of them, particularly those down as manifesto commitments, do make it into law.

She more than any other individual in the country does get to decide on laws. Certainly a damn sight more than the leader of the Opposition does.

She's had 6 years in government as Home Office Minister plus another year as PM - if she's not managed to get a law onto the statute books by now that does what she wants, while she's had a Tory majority, frankly I don't believe she's ever going to, or has any interest in doing so.

So no justification for why Theresa is avoiding talking to the Saudis then?

Where's the report gone? Why can't we see she's doing what she claims needs to be done, and having those 'embarrassing conversations' with the Saudis?

'May is trying to encroach on civil liberties while just paying lip service to the actual fight against terrorism. '

God and there we go 'encroaching on civil liberties' you'll say suspects have human rights next and shouldn't be deported or indefinitely detained.

Op whose 'fault' was 2005? You do know the UK has had diplomatic relationships with Saudi for a long time, this isnt something evil Theresa cooked up don't you?

Dammit Tories! Just give the police some support!

Theresa May's policies announced yesterday scrape a new low - she has surrendered to the terrorists and they have WON.

Basically, the whole aim of terrorism is to undermine our democracy and remove our rights and freedoms. And now Theresa has gone and done just that, by removing all of our basic rights in a democracy. Way to go, Theresa.

I suppose that's one way to stop the bombing, by creating a society the bombers want to live in, so they don't feel the need to bomb. But much like reducing immigration by crashing the UK economy, Theresa's other spiffing policy, it does seem rather self-defeating.

FFS. Orwell wasn't writing a 'how to' manual, you know.

I suppose

...someone would like to explain why having no rights is the best thing since sliced bread now? (pressed too soon)