Westministenders: Theresa's Common People

[RedToothBrush]

She came from Oxfordshire she had a thirst for knowledge
She studied geography at Saint Hugh's College
That's where politics
Caught her eye

She told them that her husband was loaded
The press barons said "In that case have a rum and coca-cola"
She said "Fine"
And in thirty seconds time she said

I want to look like common people
I want to do whatever common people do
I want to eat like common people
I want to sleep like common people
Like you

Well what else could Fiona and Nick do
They said "We'll see what we can do"

They took her to a supermarket
I don't know why
But they had to start it somewhere
So it started there
They said pretend you've got no money
She just laughed and said
"Oh you're so funny"
They smiled "Yeah”
Well we can't see anyone else smiling in here

Are you sure you want to live like common people
You want to see whatever common people see
You want to eat like common people
You want to sleep like common people
Like me

But she didn't understand
She just smiled and held Trump’s hand

Order that benefits get the chop
Tell them all to get a job
Promise to bring back the grammar school
Pretend you don’t think them a fool
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching the news talking about building the wall
All have to do is call your mates to fake it all

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
Whilst you blame it all on the EU
Because that’s all you can do

Sing along with the common people
Sing along and it might just get Brexit through
Laugh along with the common people
Laugh about leaving the EU

It’s the most stupid thing that you will do
Because you think that it is cool
You’ll call them a ‘lying foreigner’
But don’t say we didn’t warn you
You’ll regret saying we are better off out
'Cause everybody hates a benefits tourist

It doesn’t matter if you can’t do the math
With all those pockets that you grease
You’ll win the vote in Bath

You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go
You are amazed that they exist
And wish they were all white
So you tell ‘The Big Lie’

Get THE flat above THE shop
Cut your hair and get THE job
Trick some mugs and hire some fool
Pretend you are not really cruel
But still you'll never get it right
Instead you're plotting late at night
About which ‘cockroach’ will take the fall
All have to do is call your mates to fake it all
Yeah

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
As we plan to leave the EU
Because there's nothing else left to do

But ‘moan’ about how we don’t want to leave the EU.

Personally I think the soldiers with visible guns probably make more difference.

As long as the bomber doesn't rig the bomb to blow when he loosens the handle ... after all what would a suicide bombers response be to "STOP - or I'll shoot " ?

And I'd hope the soldiers guns had the right ammo to stop inside the target, and not go sailing through them into a crowd of innocents behind.

Personally, unless there is a very specific credible threat, I think armed soldiers is just security theatre (like Tony Blair running around in a tank at Heathrow years ago). For myself, I would rather not normalise armed soldiers on the streets. For a start, what powers do they have ? Are they allowed to stop. To search ? To arrest ?

I agree with you LH.
The army has been in the streets for a long time in France now. They've been there in and off since the 1990 (following some bomb attack in the underground in Paris).
At the time though, the terrorists were leaving parcels under seats in trains or in bins. Having some people on the ground keeping an eye on that made sense.
But nowdays with a suicide bomber? What will them be looking for?
And what if they spot a terrorist? Are they going to fire towards him/her when they are surrounded by people?

Imo, it's all for show. It shows that TM cares and that she is taking things Serioulsy. She has to be looking like she is indeeed a strong and stable leader that can cope in such situation.

Reposted from FB.

JC did an l'interview stating VERY clearly that he condemned the attack in Manchester.
Cue for the Telegraph to cut the interview short at the start so that JC wasn't seen condemning it.

So that's it. This attack is already used to gain political points in the GE.... :(:(

For certain types of attacks, I think that armed soldiers can end them much sooner, even if they can't prevent them from happening.
My concern is that it is only effective if those armed soldiers (or police) are very well trained for that specific scenario. Its about knowing when not to shoot as much as when to shoot. There will be a limit to how many people are suitable for such a role, so they can only cover very high profile areas.

Personally, unless there is a very specific credible threat, I think armed soldiers is just security theatre (like Tony Blair running around in a tank at Heathrow years ago). For myself, I would rather not normalise armed soldiers on the streets. For a start, what powers do they have ? Are they allowed to stop. To search ? To arrest ?

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying.

However, what you're suggesting isn't the reality of this situation, right now; it's not 'security theatre'.

All the armed forces are doing at this time, in this instance, is backfill.

They will take over from the guard duty type posts that would normally be done by armed police; this frees up the police to do the police stuff which they're trained for - it's sensible.
The armed forces will be under the control & command of the police, so it's up to the police commanders what they think is an appropriate level of activity wrt their duties.

The 'critical' level should only ever be in force for minimum time (days, rather than weeks) as it loses its potency otherwise - and it's only raised to critical when absolutely necessary.

Wrt armed soldiers on the street becoming normalised - I'm totally in agreement with you - I would hate for our country to become like that, that's not what Britain is, nor should it be.

My concern is that it is only effective if those armed soldiers (or police) are very well trained for that specific scenario

Army are army, police are police. It's bad enough when the police blow innocent peoples heads off ...

There is no end.

Daesh want us to react and react with anger. They have been weakening in the middle east and so the strategy has switched to attacking western targets. The reasoning behind this, is to provoke a 'clamp down' which Daesh think will be a good recruitment tool. My other understanding is that in recent years they moved away from the middle east because they were losing ground and started to try and really establish themselves in Libya in order to have a secondary centre from which to operate out of.

I saw a very good article yesterday:
"Terrorism is mass murder with a media strategy; it’s time to disrupt it."
www.buzzfeed.com/zeyneptufekci/dont-let-isis-shape-the-news?utm_term=.daz9KyeJ3#.qpYbj5Y4E
ISIS Has A Strategy To Create A Media Frenzy And News Outlets Are Struggling To Disrupt It

The argument is to strangle ISIS through the media.

There is a problem here though which is best summed up by these tweets:

Gareth Davies‏*@Gareth*_Davies09
We (journalists) need to change the way we respond to tragedy. These are people not stories

Dan Hett‏*@danhett*
I have dealt with 50+ journos online today. Two found my mobile number. This cunt found my house. [photo of a note stuck through the door by the telegraph] I still don't know if my brother is alive.

(the counter argument to 'death knocks is here: www.pressgazette.co.uk/why-death-knocks-are-a-difficult-but-essential-part-of-the-job-for-journalists/.)

and also:

Em‏*@DrEm*_79
When I was caught up in a terrorist incident 4yrs ago, the behaviour of UK media made the trauma much worse. They don't seem to have changed

There is an appetite for the drama of a terrorist attack. Its often more voyeurism taken to the extreme rather than a genuine desire for being informed of events or giving correct details about victims.

Remember increasingly modern newspapers gain revenue through clicks, so if a story about a terrorist attack is click baity enough they get more money.

The more horror. The more click baity. The more revenue. And its all a race to get the 'scoop' first. To hell with the accuracy. It can be amended later.

Also see the rise of She I Refuse To Name and the Final Solution. And the Controversy Whore who was in a very well known 1980s Manchester band, then went solo and is known for being an icon for miserable bastards.

This gets me when people say society is not to blame. Society, even in its innocent and ignorance plays a part. We are under the control of these events through our own horror and revulsion. Through our love of celebrity. Or our hate of it.

I also am somewhat alarmed by the intervention of the US yesterday:
www.buzzfeed.com/mitchprothero/us-officials-keep-talking-about-the-manchester-attack-and?utm_term=.bboVJ8079&bftwnews#.tvvLmEjvW
US Officials Keep Talking About The Manchester Attack And It’s Freaking Out European Allies
Even some officials in Washington were frustrated by the fact that the information was coming from the US rather than the UK, calling it “unprofessional.”

Why on earth were the US doing this? I'd heard earlier in the day that the British authorities had DELIBERATELY asked media outlets and other authorities to not release the name (in part because investigations were ongoing).

There is also a highly questionable (and political) issue here.

The money trail. Unfortunately we have a problem where international cooperation to trace money laundered for terrorism is being hampered. Then there is also the issue over the arms trade. That's one avenue I'm not going to go down today, but I think you'll get my point about there being certain conflicts of interest both here and abroad.

Until we all work out how these things are all interconnected and related we will make no progress and the attacks will get worse. (One of the worst things about yesterday was that I'd long thought an attack on a target like that was likely to happen at some point. It didn't shock me for that reason and that's left me feeling numb and dreadful about how desensitised I've become in a way. The details are shocking but the target wasn't).

Given our societies liking for simple solutions (and being seen to do something) rather than complex solutions (which are usually long term, rather dull, complex and unglamorous) I'm not holding my breathe. Indeed even this, shows our society's dependence on the media for feeding and satisfying it. We can't do what the best thing is. We have to be 'seen' to do something, which unfortunately often also has negative side effects and is totally counter productive.

But hell I'm a liberal. What the fuck do I know. I should shut up because 'we must do something'.

No one is yet to tell me what this magic bullet is though. No one is able to tell me how they intend to fix the problem and use authoritarian means more effectively than any other society in history who has tried to solve similar issues has managed.

I do wonder if there is a solution. Humans are born to build but also born to destroy. There is a certain inescapable destiny here. We need to solve problems from the ground up, but we like the short cuts too much and we are selfish.

(I think I've become very jaded over the whole thing if I'm honest. I've lived with the questions 'Why?' and 'How do we stop this?' for over 20 years. I'm not sure I'm any closer to the answer. I something think that the answer is merely 'Because'. And that's it rather there being some satisfying happy ending or conclusion).

Sigh

I might get back in my box for a while. Last night stories of friends of friends were filtering through. They aren't good. I'm expecting more over the next few days. I'm just a stupid liberal afterall. This is the consequence of being a liberal.

P.S. Since I started typing this it has been confirmed that Martyn Hett (the brother of the tweeter above) has been killed.

Charmageddon, there are limits to what even the army can do on the streets in a civilian setting in the face of someone prepared to kill themselves.

If the army are being called in to free up the police, then I also think that raises the question of whether the police have had the resources to cope. It also has a political effect too, which I am very uncomfortable with under the circumstances.

Whilst I do agree that there is an ongoing investigation here that perhaps does merit more security, I worry that it is still more about theatre.

I also worry about how long this is going to last, and whether this is merely the start of 'new normal' we learn to live with and don't know any different from.

"Army are army, police are police."
I understand the sentiment, but I don't think that's entirely true. There is a range of different personality types and skill levels within the police, as there is in all organisations. Many police officers will never be suitable for an armed role, in my opinion, but may be very good at their jobs when deployed in other roles. I think that there is, sadly, a need for armed police in our society, but that these should be limited to an "elite" ( a controversial word now!) who are very well trained, and well managed. I would have a huge problem with the idea that all police should be armed however.

"Army are army, police are police."
Will it not also follow squishy that some Army are unsuitable for policing roles?

The bottom line is a soldiers role is - and always has been - to kill. You can dress it up in any amount of touchy-feely modern euphemisms and HR fairy dust, but there's a reason they are the armed forces.

Yes, soldiers have a dazzling array of other skills. But every single one of them starts with being trained to use a gun, and to kill.

Or, to turn things on their head: why do we have police, if the army can do it all ?

There's also another dimension, which hasn't been addressed. Now we have deployed soldiers, where do we go to from here ? Is there another level ? Internment, maybe ?

I appreciate there are a lot of folk in the UK seeing news footage of soldiers and feeling reassured. I suspect there are just as many - if nit more - people on the ISIS side of things with exactly the same feeling. Their feeling being driven by a sense of "well we appear to be having an impact".

I can't help thinking that Armed Soldiers on the streets are what people in NI had to put up with for years.

I am extremely cynical as to Theresa May's motives.

If the army are being called in to free up the police, then I also think that raises the question of whether the police have had the resources to cope. It also has a political effect too, which I am very uncomfortable with under the circumstances.

They're freeing up armed police, which is different.

Keeping someone 'in-date' for firearms if they don't require it is a waste of money, time & resources - it makes no logical sense to do so.

In the very, very rare occasion that the threat level is raised for a minimum period of time (should never be more than days), then armed personnel take over the armed guard duty - it's a sensible & measured response.

"Army are army, police are police."*
Will it not also follow squishy that some Army are unsuitable for policing roles?*

Well, yes, obviously.

But they're not being brought in to do 'police roles' - they're being brought in to do armed guard roles - something they are refresher trained in, and actively do, every single year.

I fear we might be locked into a downward spiral that only leads one way.

I'm not sure that we have the political will or the social will to break from that.

To be cheerful but blunt.

I have to agree with Red.

For those apologists for Theresa May: Is there a point at which you will think she has gone too far?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Temperer

"Will it not also follow squishy that some Army are unsuitable for policing roles?"

Yes!
Reading back over the thread, I think I may have slightly misunderstood the point you were making Lurking, sorry.

I do think that at certain times it may be necessary to have soldiers guarding certain areas, but not indefinitely, and I never want to see them widely deployed across the UK. I would rather it was done by armed police, if it has to be done at all.
And I also worry about the slippery slope aspect of it all, but think that an armed presence is necessary in certain areas. They wont be able to stop all attacks, but sometimes being able to respond quickly will make a huge difference. Its about a balance, in my opinion, between security and freedom, and it is rare to find two people who agree on exactly where that line should be drawn.

I would rather it was done by armed police, if it has to be done at all.
Who, of course, cut back on the number of Police, which would included the Armed Response units? Step forward one Theresa May.

What exactly would an armed person have been able to do at Monday night's bombing? I assume the man in question wasn't obviously wearing the explosive device?

I just wonder in passing how they were able to identify him so quickly. And if he was already known to him, why were they not able to stop him? There are a lot of questions, which would no doubt have caused a serious debate in Parliament, had it not been dissolved.

For those apologists for Theresa May: Is there a point at which you will think she has gone too far?

I know you have a deep hatred for Theresa May, but get a grip.

Shami Chakrabarti was on NewsNight last night, and she said the conspiracy theorists who are promulgating the 'Theresa May has upped the threat level & deployed the army for her own ends' rhetoric are full of shit.

I don't for a second think that Shami Chakrabarti would be defending TM's decision if she had any reason to suspect it was dodgy.

So it transpires that he was a mule - explosives assembled by someone else, he was the patsy.

That means there is a very real possibility that there are others ready to go.

Quite right then that the threat level has been increased, and armed response officers have now been released from static armed guard posts to be redeployed as required.

Armed police would have been able to do very little to stop the suicide bomber.
But there are already many barriers in place to stop people making/getting their hands on a bomb. They obviously failed in this case, but it is still difficult to carry out this kind of attack, and it is difficult to do without involving other people - the more people involved in a plot, the greater the chance of the security services finding out.
It is much more difficult to prevent low tech attacks; anyone can get their hands on knives and cars, and they can often do it by themselves, without giving anyone else a chance to report their intentions. I think that armed police can be effective against low tech attacks, if they are able to respond quickly.