The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[PokerBroker]

One reason why politicians (and many others) argue for nukes is because nukes are something that big, important countries have and Britain is a big, important country. We must be right? - we won that big war 70 years ago and totally kicked the Argie's backsides 30 years ago. We have that permanent seat on the UN Security Council like our global equals the US, Russia and China (though who let those French pricks in I don't know - Brigitte Bardot must have slept with someone important to get that).

We can't let piffling, minor, ethnic countries like Iran have them because it devalues our nukes. In the same way you don't like seeing some common little prick wearing the same nice coat you wear.

Vote UKIP.

 

[RickBFA]

Jeez, is there any point?

None at all

Has been a good thread but time to leave it for good (mean it this time)

You should keep posting here Horsey, would be a shame if you don't contribute.

Just because people hold the opposing view as strongly as you hold yours is no reason to walk away.

[DaveShoelace]

Jeez, is there any point?

None at all

Has been a good thread but time to leave it for good (mean it this time)

You should keep posting here Horsey, would be a shame if you don't contribute.

Just because people hold the opposing view as strongly as you hold yours is no reason to walk away.

This, please don't go. If you think we are going round in circles on a topic, just sit out for half a day.

[PokerBroker]

Can I interject, Britain's shoot to kill policy has been successful in the past?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

But as the old saying goes one man's terrorist is another man's dreamer.  

I mean, when Cameron and his chums were crying for Mandella to be hung some of us were on the side of Madiba.  Some people's hypocrisy knows no bounds.  

I mentioned earlier but what sovereign right can Britain have to the Falklands or Gibraltar?  It is these sorts of attitudes that hold us back.  

Personally, I'd rather not be a super power, not really worth the hassle, why can't we just concentrate on making the conditions for the people here better.  We could do this by scrapping our ego, and default setting of going to battle.  Let's scrap trident and be part of the majority, lets invest that money housing, nhs and more cops on the beat.  

[DaveShoelace]

Can I interject, Britain's shoot to kill policy has been successful in the past?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

We have been mostly talking in the context of a Paris style attack, where the terrorists either have guns or explosives. I don't think anyone disagrees that if a clear opportunity to take them alive presents itself, that's the best option, but when civilians are in immediate danger, you may only have one chance.

[TightEnd]

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

ill leave your other points kmac, but this one

a terrorist is in the centre of paris, suicide bomber maybe, ak47 pointing at you maybe

how do you capture him to gain information whilst minimising the risk of civilian deaths from that point on?

your life as a law enforcement officer at this point isn't a box of chocolates the left wishes it was.

shoot him, kill him.

move on.

[PokerBroker]

Can I interject, Britain's shoot to kill policy has been successful in the past?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

We have been mostly talking in the context of a Paris style attack, where the terrorists either have guns or explosives. I don't think anyone disagrees that if a clear opportunity to take them alive presents itself, that's the best option, but when civilians are in immediate danger, you may only have one chance.

How often has than happened here?  

Have we forgot about Jean Charles de Menezes - that worked out well for that chap.  Afterall he has a bag of explosives.  Just like Sadam had WMD's.  

Or further back, Bloody Sunday in Derry.  That worked out well, that was probably the biggest recruitment drive for groups like INLA/PIRA and to the best of my knowledge more damage was inflicted on England by those groups than anyone else with the exception of the blitz.  

As I have said, I'm not a Labour voter indeed not even sure I particularly like Corbyn, but if it was a choice between him and Cameron and it came down to who I trust most it's not even close.  Granted, if we get back to the economy, I wouldn't trust any of this Labour group but that is not an endorsement of the Tories.  Both are shambolic.  

[RickBFA]

Just going back to Corbyn.

We can debate these issues but the bottom line is he just isn't suited to the job and is frankly not a leader.

Decent and genuine bloke? Yes

Good as a campaigning back bencher? Definitely

These positives about the guy are the reason he finds the pragmatism needed in politics as a leader almost impossible.

The sooner for his own sake and the sake of the Labour Party he is replaced the better.

Even his strongest supporters must realise it's not workable?

[Doobs]

Can I interject, Britain's shoot to kill policy has been successful in the past?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

But as the old saying goes one man's terrorist is another man's dreamer.  

I mean, when Cameron and his chums were crying for Mandella to be hung some of us were on the side of Madiba.  Some people's hypocrisy knows no bounds.  

I mentioned earlier but what sovereign right can Britain have to the Falklands or Gibraltar?  It is these sorts of attitudes that hold us back.  

Personally, I'd rather not be a super power, not really worth the hassle, why can't we just concentrate on making the conditions for the people here better.  We could do this by scrapping our ego, and default setting of going to battle.  Let's scrap trident and be part of the majority, lets invest that money housing, nhs and more cops on the beat.  

Can you produce any evidence that Cameron wanted to hang Mandela?  It seems that we aren't happy with Corbyn's actual words, but we are quite happy to attach untruths and smear Cameron.  The left seem quite happy to produce any old shit on Twitter without the slightest attempt at fact checking and then accuse the press of doing the smearing.  You have to be above it if you are going to point fingers.  

[DaveShoelace]

Can I interject, Britain's shoot to kill policy has been successful in the past?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

We have been mostly talking in the context of a Paris style attack, where the terrorists either have guns or explosives. I don't think anyone disagrees that if a clear opportunity to take them alive presents itself, that's the best option, but when civilians are in immediate danger, you may only have one chance.

How often has than happened here?  

Have we forgot about Jean Charles de Menezes - that worked out well for that chap.  Afterall he has a bag of explosives.  Just like Sadam had WMD's.  

Or further back, Bloody Sunday in Derry.  That worked out well, that was probably the biggest recruitment drive for groups like INLA/PIRA and to the best of my knowledge more damage was inflicted on England by those groups than anyone else with the exception of the blitz.  

Well that's a straw man argument. When I said 'Paris style attack' what did you have in mind? That means an attack, in progress, where the threat to life is abundantly clear . How often does it happen? Thankfully, not very often at all, but in the event it does I would hope we are prepared.

[MintTrav]

Don't we all agree that in the midst of an armed attack, it is fine to shoot the attacker(s), and to try to kill them if there is a direct threat to life but, otherwise, we should try to disarm them?

We all agree on that - you, me, Corbyn, Cameron and everyone else. We are splitting hairs, but it's a non-issue.

[DungBeetle]

Don't we all agree that in the midst of an armed attack, it is fine to shoot the attacker(s), and to try to kill them if there is a direct threat to life but, otherwise, we should try to disarm them?

We all agree on that - you, me, Corbyn, Cameron and everyone else. We are splitting hairs, but it's a non-issue.

Agreed that Corbyn said that on his rehash.  But I'm sure you'll agree he couldn't bring himself to say that on his first unscripted attempt?

[MintTrav]

Can I interject, Britain's shoot to kill policy has been successful in the past?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

But as the old saying goes one man's terrorist is another man's dreamer.  

I mean, when Cameron and his chums were crying for Mandella to be hung some of us were on the side of Madiba.  Some people's hypocrisy knows no bounds.  

I mentioned earlier but what sovereign right can Britain have to the Falklands or Gibraltar?  It is these sorts of attitudes that hold us back.  

Personally, I'd rather not be a super power, not really worth the hassle, why can't we just concentrate on making the conditions for the people here better.  We could do this by scrapping our ego, and default setting of going to battle.  Let's scrap trident and be part of the majority, lets invest that money housing, nhs and more cops on the beat.  

Can you produce any evidence that Cameron wanted to hang Mandela?  It seems that we aren't happy with Corbyn's actual words, but we are quite happy to attach untruths and smear Cameron.  The left seem quite happy to produce any old shit on Twitter without the slightest attempt at fact checking and then accuse the press of doing the smearing.  You have to be above it if you are going to point fingers.  

Don't know about Cameron, but there were plenty of leading Tories condemning Mandela in the Eighties. This argument seems a bit out of date now, though.

[nirvana]

Jeez, is there any point?

None at all

Has been a good thread but time to leave it for good (mean it this time)

You should keep posting here Horsey, would be a shame if you don't contribute.

Just because people hold the opposing view as strongly as you hold yours is no reason to walk away.

tbf the debate here is achingly polite so if Horsey wants to go he may, and he can also take his Barbie with him

[nirvana]

Can I interject, Britain's shoot to kill policy has been successful in the past?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to capture terrorists and garner information rather than even up the body count?

We have been mostly talking in the context of a Paris style attack, where the terrorists either have guns or explosives. I don't think anyone disagrees that if a clear opportunity to take them alive presents itself, that's the best option, but when civilians are in immediate danger, you may only have one chance.

How often has than happened here?  

Have we forgot about Jean Charles de Menezes - that worked out well for that chap.  Afterall he has a bag of explosives.  Just like Sadam had WMD's.  

Or further back, Bloody Sunday in Derry.  That worked out well, that was probably the biggest recruitment drive for groups like INLA/PIRA and to the best of my knowledge more damage was inflicted on England by those groups than anyone else with the exception of the blitz.  

As I have said, I'm not a Labour voter indeed not even sure I particularly like Corbyn, but if it was a choice between him and Cameron and it came down to who I trust most it's not even close.  Granted, if we get back to the economy, I wouldn't trust any of this Labour group but that is not an endorsement of the Tories.  Both are shambolic.  

Surely tho, one can despise the failings that let to the de Menezes shooting and Bloody Sunday and still be unequivocally supportive of strong armed response ability involving shoot to kill.

It aint binary