There's a paywall. What is the TP;CR of it?
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Just wondering, why is it that Qatar is overlooked in these debates? Not only do they own quite a bit of well known real estate in this country, but we're heading off to a World Cup there in 2022. Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Gulf state is not a silent actor. With regard to Libya in particular, their destabilising influence has been much reported.
Very good
Good point!
Try the cached version.
https://webcache.googleusercontent....7-a3f4-c742b9791d43+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Thanks
May of already been posted but it sums it upTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
20k less police since 2010 & 1300 less armed police.
Where do I pick up my Stalinist card btw?
'Comfortable in the company of the worst President in US history, arms dealers, blood-sports enthusiasts, and millionaires who'd deprive our poorest children of free school dinners...'
You missed the boat. They were given out when the old Trots were "twisting the arms of Labour entryists" around Corbyn's rise to the leadership.
Less than 70 majority and she's probably toast- only two allies in the cabinet.
I suspect there will be a big reshuffle though post election and more allies drafted in and promoted to more senior posts
Would be interesting to see who might challenge though if things don't go well?
Boris?... managing credit??????
Amber Rudd is possibly too close to may
Stephen crabb?????
Not inconceivable that four party leaders could all go with a small conservative majority
May... not a clear enough win?
Corbyn... loosing seats?
Farron... not getting old vote back?
Nuttall... UKIP collapse?
My gut feel is may will win by enough to be ok and lack of options will ensure farron is safe... other 2 probably going to face a challenge though
Everyone was warned about this at the time of police cuts but May addressed the Police Federation and branded them 'scaremongers'
I'm curious TR, what level of training does the average policeman get in terms of self defense against people with weapons?
Not sure how it'll go tbh, what with our faith in polls shattered.
Oh god, Friday is going be a busy day I feel, but decent traffic day for the site.
Quite basic in my opinion hence why I took up wrestling and jiu jitsu in my own time.
Every officer carries incapacitant spray and baton with some, but not all, taser.
I've heard the first officer on scene (who would have been unarmed) fought the three suspects and in total 4 police officers were stabbed but none seriously injured. It's very hard to fight multiple attackers with weapons though whatever level of training.
Is the training something you do early on and don't really train afterwards or is it something that gets put into a schedule of sorts? I'm just curious given the growing threat and standard policemen are normally the first ones to react, seems a bit off to me that they're somewhat underprepared (this would be a Government issue, I am in no way criticising the Police as i'm sure the reason you don't/can't do this is financial).
So it seems a bit basic to say that Police need more numbers, when in fact what you could do with is more numbers, better equipment and more time to train during working hours. Is that something you'd agree with?
Hand on heart, would you argue the point with Toff in the evening or wait til morning?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
You do more intense training when you start and then every year you go through a refresher but you're right in saying the more training you do the better you become. The issue is allowing abstractions with operational numbers of staff. Quite hard to balance.
In an ideal world to develop any kind of martial art skills or even basic self defence you need to train regularly.
Wait. Their name is Toff?
Nah I wouldn't be able to stop myself from telling her she's an idiot who's out of touch with reality.
As predicted, Laura Kuenssberg's efforts are still proving fruitful. Your thoughts, Ubik?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Georgia ToffoloWait. Their name is Toff?
The blonde is thick as two short planks but shares a very common opinion, unfortunately. It's a rather poisonous position that turns people against each other.
Corbyn's "not happy with the shoot to kill policy" is a direct quote from him, given after Kuenssberg had asked him "but if you were Prime Minister, would you be happy to order people, police or military, to shoot to kill on Britain's streets?". His answer, verbatim, is "er, I would- I'm not happy with the shoot to kill policy in general, I think that is, erm, quite dangerous, and I think can often be quite counter-productive. I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can. There are various degrees of doing things, as we know, but the idea that you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely, you have to work to prevent these things happening, surely that's got to be the priority."
So you're basically complaining that people are now reading about Corbyn's actual answer. The Trust ruled that the way it had been cut to appear on the news was misleading, not that the interview had to be expunged from the record.
EDIT - Just checked the actual video the guy's referencing and yup, it's the direct question and answer unedited from the interview, so he's basically talking shite.
Last edited:
So not "if there was a Paris-style terror attack on Britain's streets" as the description on that story still says on the BBC website? The one that is the day's 4th most watched video?
Because, in reality, to that question Corbyn had replied: "Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent and ensure there is safety within our society." Which would call into question the accuracy of the page's title which reads "Jeremy Corbyn opposes 'shoot to kill' policy"
The question was a follow on to a question about the Paris attacks, from an interview given 3 days after the Paris attacks, and the 30 seconds of video presents the unedited relevant question and answer. The Trust's ruling was about the segment presented on the 6 O'Clock News.
If I was PM I wouldn't be happy ordering police to shoot to kill on the streets of the UK. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't do it.
What type of person would be HAPPY ordering people to be shot? Surely it should be a taken with a heavy heart.
What type of person would be HAPPY ordering people to be shot? Surely it should be a taken with a heavy heart.
So the description of the video on that page (i.e. the text mentioned in the tweet) talking about "in the event of a terror attack in the UK" and "if there was a Paris-style terror attack on Britain's streets" when the video itself doesn't cover that question is inaccurate? Not to mention the title, given the answer to the other question.
Last edited:
Good point- at best it's a poorly worded question.
I think they should've had both questions in the vid, but that text is fine. He was asked one question on whether he'd bring security services on to the streets (you missed the part where he said "much better that's done by the police than the security services", by the way, but no biggie), and then a follow on about the shoot to kill policy, clearly linked to the preceding question. Thus, "Asked if he was prime minister whether he would be happy to order police or military to shoot-to-kill if there was a Paris-style terror attack on Britain's streets" is a fair summation.
Great to know though that you're even willing to use the aftermath of a terror attack to indulge in a bit of Kuenssberg bashing (and then bring me in to it for some reason). It's obviously only despicable when May does that kind of thing.
So other than the fact the text makes out his response was to a completely different question, that isn't in the video at all, it's fine. Yet, as you pointed out, the BBC Trust's ruling was against the News' version of that video which was edited so it looked as though he was answering that question. So video form of that inaccuracy is bad, but the text form is fine?
But that summation doesn't end there does it? It continues to say he "...told the BBC he was "not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general" and "the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing... I think that is quite dangerous and I think can often can be counterproductive"." Which wasn't his answer to that question, was it? The fact this follows you accusing someone else of 'talking shite' is just wonderful.
Last edited:
There is a culture among quite a significant pro-Corbyn support on social media which has turned into a cult like and hateful movement.
The fake news being spread, harassment of journalists, calling polling companies fake and propaganda, claiming certain polls are rigged, antisemitism.
Scarily seeing a lot of similarities between these Corbyn fans and what Trump fans were doing last year during the election campaign.
The fake news being spread, harassment of journalists, calling polling companies fake and propaganda, claiming certain polls are rigged, antisemitism.
Scarily seeing a lot of similarities between these Corbyn fans and what Trump fans were doing last year during the election campaign.
Last edited:
Are you quite sure that this is pro Corbyn and not pro Tory? Because it sounds a lot like the Tories
The FT article I posted a link to earlier drew the same parallels. I thought ut was daft at first, but now I'm not so sure.
For the so-called good guys, they gleefully enjoy footage of people being needlessly obnoxious and agressive to Conservative campaigners, for example.
Any links? I don't check social media as it's the devil. The actual Media have been dire this election, all it's done in my mind is reassure me that they're all useless (BBC included). Independent journalists tend to be more truthful and less biased from the articles posted in this thread.
A bit of an overreaction don't you think?