[News] Jeremy Corbyn 'not happy' with shoot-to-kill policy

portlock seagull · Nov 16, 2015

Listening to some of the dozens of 'expert' commentators on how to go about tackling these sadist deathwishers it does make you wonder whether they're on the same planet. "Should have arrested Jihadi John, put them on trial etc..." not exactly practical options me thinks. As someone's said, try doing that with a suicide belted ak47 pointing fanatic and well, it's going to get messy let's say. With your blood too!

Red Side Of Sussex · Nov 16, 2015

Paul Reids Sock said:
The point I was more making was that you can shoot without shooting to kill. There are other options to just going for a head shot.

I am more than happy for us to take them out in anyway possible to stop an attack but killing will not alway be the answer and I think that is all he was trying to get across here!

30 years ago I was doing basic training with the Queens infantry regiment at Bassingbourne barracks,Cambridgeshire.I remember the first time on the firing range using the SLR rifle and being amazed at the size of the 7.62mm bullet we were all loading into the magazines..It become clear to the young 17 year old kid I was back then that these little fellas would kill the second they struck your body.We were told by our instructors that when you have a target in your sights you always aim for the chest and put as many bullets into this area until the target drops to the ground.Our corporal made it quite clear that head shots were a no no simply because the chest is much easier to hit then the head.

Paul Reids Sock · Nov 16, 2015

Red Side Of Sussex said:
30 years ago I was doing basic training with the Queens infantry regiment at Bassingbourne barracks,Cambridgeshire.I remember the first time on the firing range using the SLR rifle and being amazed at the size of the 7.62mm bullet we were all loading into the magazines..It become clear to the young 17 year old kid I was back then that these little fellas would kill the second they struck your body.We were told by our instructors that when you have a target in your sights you always aim for the chest and put as many bullets into this area until the target drops to the ground.Our corporal made it quite clear that head shots were a no no.

I think I may need to clarify the head shot. It was more just a throw away phrase more than anything as am aware they probably not aim for the head due to small target, moving etc etc.

My point being that there will always be other options and, in my mind, that was all Corbyn (and I am not really a Corbyn fan) was trying to say

Gullflyinghigh · Nov 16, 2015

Creaky said:
The article highlights the basic situation - a 'shoot to kill' policy is not legal in the current framework. It is NOT politicians nor senior police officers who decide whether armed officers should shoot to kill or not - it is the individual police officer who has to make that decision, depending on the circumstances they find themselves in and they have to be able to defend their actions in a court of law.

I don't want politicians of any variety making that decision.

That seems like the sanest option I guess, they're the ones that'll have to live with the decision afterwards...

Diablo · Nov 16, 2015

jonny.rainbow said:
Read that in the Daily Mail did you?

CCTV footage was released 10 years ago showing Jean Charles De Menezes casually picking up a copy of the Metro before using his Oyster card to pass through the ticket barrier.

AT NO POINT DID HE RUN.

Watch this video and retract your horseshit post.

I didn`t read it in the mail....He was here illegally. If you believe all you see on you tube that`s up to you. I expect you notice some agree with me, you obviously don`t.: Horse :shit:

Ha Ha Ha

Hastings gull · Nov 16, 2015

Bold Seagull said:
Asked about the prime minister's own opinion of the shoot-to-kill policy, David Cameron's official spokesman said such matters were ultimately "an operational decision for police on the ground".

So basically, no different to what Corbyn has said, just presented differently...

Whilst you are right in that neither response gives a definitive personal view, there is, in my opinion, a difference. DC's spokesperson's statement would suggest that a policeman's decision would be backed up, JC's standpoint makes this far less likely. That would not be lost on the individual policeman in the firing line.

Bold Seagull · Nov 16, 2015

Buzzer said:
"I'm not happy at all with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think it is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive"

"such matter are ultimately an operational decision for police on the ground".

I'm sorry but there are no similarities at all in those two statements as far as I can see. Can you show me how you can infer anything like the former from the latter?

Corbyn was asked directly if he would order the shoot to kill whether to the armed forces or police, which he didn't actually say he wouldn't, just that he would be concerned. Asked the same question whether he would order it, Cameron's spokesperson said it was an operational decision for police on the ground. So neither said they would or wouldn't order a shoot to kill.

jonny.rainbow · Nov 16, 2015

Diablo said:
I didn`t read it in the mail....He was here illegally. If you believe all you see on you tube that`s up to you. I expect you notice some agree with me, you obviously don`t.: Horse Ha Ha Ha

Prove he was here illegally.

jonny.rainbow · Nov 16, 2015

jonny.rainbow said:
Prove he was here illegally.

And the CCTV footage was shown on all news outlets at the time. It was the first video I could find of it.

Prove he ran.

NooBHA · Nov 16, 2015

Diablo said:
I didn`t read it in the mail....He was here illegally. If you believe all you see on you tube that`s up to you. I expect you notice some agree with me, you obviously don`t.: Horse Ha Ha Ha

I have 4 mates over in Australia at the moment and all 4 have overstayed their Visas because they like the life over there and enjoy working there. I would hate to think they would all come home with bullets in their head because they were working hard and enjoying the lifestyle in Australia

jonny.rainbow · Nov 16, 2015

Diablo said:
I didn`t read it in the mail....He was here illegally. If you believe all you see on you tube that`s up to you. I expect you notice some agree with me, you obviously don`t.: Horse Ha Ha Ha

jonny.rainbow said:
Prove he was here illegally.

jonny.rainbow said:
And the CCTV footage was shown on all news outlets at the time. It was the first video I could find of it.

Prove he ran.

NB. Corrected post.

Diablo · Nov 16, 2015

NooBHA said:
I have 4 mates over in Australia at the moment and all 4 have overstayed their Visas because they like the life over there and enjoy working there. I would hate to think they would all come home with bullets in their head because they were working hard and enjoying the lifestyle in Australia

Of course with hindsight he should not have been shot...And of course many overstay their Visas..but when country on terrorist alert..I believe his lack of response to police demands led to his shooting.

FREDBINNEY · Nov 16, 2015

Buzzer said:
"I'm not happy at all with a shoot to kill policy in general. I think it is quite dangerous and can often be counter-productive"

"such matter are ultimately an operational decision for police on the ground".

I'm sorry but there are no similarities at all in those two statements as far as I can see. Can you show me how you can infer anything like the former from the latter?

Agreed, no similarity whatsoever.

Buzzer · Nov 16, 2015

Bold Seagull said:
Corbyn was asked directly if he would order the shoot to kill whether to the armed forces or police, which he didn't actually say he wouldn't, just that he would be concerned. Asked the same question whether he would order it, Cameron's spokesperson said it was an operational decision for police on the ground. So neither said they would or wouldn't order a shoot to kill.

You can't draw similarities on two statements on what they don't say otherwise you could claim that any two random statements are the same and make all sort of inaccurate or meaningless comparisons.

Even if you boil both statements down you'll see that Corbyn's statement is all about personal and highly contentious opinions about shoot-to-kill policy whereas Cameron's is a bland statement of fact with absolutely no opinion whatsoever. Sorry but those two statements are absolutely nothing alike.

Diablo · Nov 16, 2015

jonny.rainbow said:
NB. Corrected post.

.... I am merely expressing an opinion based on what I have heard/ read on matter. However I do believe that he was shot by Policeman who genuinely believed he was a terrorist. Easy with hindsight to say he should not have been shot. Sadly a tragic consequence of Terrorism...Innocent people get Killed.

goldstone68 · Nov 16, 2015

Don't know if anybody else has read this article (in the Mail), but it has been written by a police border security expert. It states that if a major incident happens over here, the death toll would be greater because of the reaction time of our armed police officers, who total approx 6000, would not be quick enough. Whereas the French can throw hundreds of armed police onto the streets within minutes, and thousands within a hour or so. And in France all 278,000 police officers carry guns.

God forbid anything will happen over here, I know plans are put in place for such an incident, and our security forces must know more than we possibly give them credit for, but its all a bit of a worry really.

wigman · Nov 16, 2015

Chinman3000 said:
Which is another reason why he is an unelectable old fool and will always remain so.

100% this.
He is too weak to ever be considered as a future pm.

Stat Brother · Nov 16, 2015

Buzzer said:
You can't draw similarities on two statements on what they don't say otherwise you could claim that any two random statements are the same and make all sort of inaccurate or meaningless comparisons.

Even if you boil both statements down you'll see that Corbyn's statement is all about personal and highly contentious opinions about shoot-to-kill policy whereas Cameron's is a bland statement of fact with absolutely no opinion whatsoever. Sorry but those two statements are absolutely nothing alike.

I find that hard to believe, are we talking about the same Dave Cameron?

Mutts Nuts · Nov 16, 2015

JC Footy Genius said:
Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.

The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".

He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.

"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34832023

Trying to handcuff a heavily armed suicide bomber could prove tricky ......

F*kc him

Buzzer · Nov 16, 2015

Corbyn getting 'savaged' in tonight's PLP meeting regarding these remarks

[tweet]666339926728921089[/tweet]

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Jeremy Corbyn 'not happy' with shoot-to-kill policy

Why? Why us?

Active member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Well-known member

strong and stable with me, or...

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Languidly Clinical

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Languidly Clinical

Share this page