pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

I would probably say that Cameron is a world political leader? Not as much in Europe.
If they had to be put in order
Obama
Merkel
Cameron?

Cameron wants to be in with the world leaders

Over the weekend it was reported top military brass have advised the only was to defeat IS is boots on the ground, send in the army and IS will be defeated in two weeks

Be over by Christmas ! Think this has been believed in the past

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12010688/David-Cameron-announces-5000-strong-strike-brigades-to-take-the-fight-to-terrorists.html

The warmongers are getting their way. In the meantime we will have fewer police in the UK to cope with the aftermath.

"Jeremy Corbyn has stated that Labour will support military action to keep the UK safe, provided the Conservative Government does not cut frontline policing in this country – but the Tories have announced that policing cuts will go ahead.

What the wh-?

Here’s Corbyn offering the Tories a chance for consensus on a plate, and they spit in his face? Madness!

Or are they hoping that the Labour ‘moderates’ (they should be labelled ‘intolerants’) get the free vote they’re after and overturn Corbyn’s desire for a refusal unless his terms are met?"

An interesting idea. See what happens. Osborne was still saying yesterday that they will not call for a vote in parliament unless they are sure to win.

www.change.org/p/tell-the-world-s-leaders-you-demand-a-world-free-from-nuclear-weapons
For other pacifists to sign.

I would like to know how 940 people in custody can be killed in twelve years yet not one charged .

How many more will be tastered or shot because the armed officer thought the person may be a danger

Should people suffering from dementia who wander from home be considered a threat to the public be tasered

How long are so many so willing to accept - we made a mistake but lessons will be learned

An article in Wednesday's i said that the health risks of being hit by a 50,000 volt taser are far greater than first thought.

Home office statistics say that there has been a fifty per cent rise in their use in the last five years. Last year tasers were drawn 10,062 times and fired 1,724 times.

A BMJ report this week said that there have been deaths from uncontrolled falls after being tasered.

www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2986318/shooting_to_kill_corbyn_the_coup_is_on.html

Charles de Menezes case mentioned in here.

Thank you Eloethan for posting the facts. This is my concern, how many innocent people would be killed because the police thought, not the police knew . I remember a poor man alone on a bus in a hypoglycaemia shock was tasered and killed because the police thought he was a terrorist

Between 1990 and 2012. 940 people were killed in police custody ,if these people were in custody how could they have been a danger to the public or police

Untill the police stop defending officers who have comitted crimes , stopped
Lying to the public how can we trust them

I am not anti police , I am anti police corruption

soontobe If your question regarding misuse was in respect of my comments about the misuse of Tasers :

The Guardian in 2012 referred to several cases:

Colin Farmer, 61, was Tasered in the back after police received a report of a man running through Chorley with a sword. Colin Farmer is blind and was carrying a white stick.

James McCarthy, 22, suffered a cardiac arrest after he was Tasered 4 times by Merseyside Police.

Peter Russell, 59 and suffering from Alzheimers, was Tasered.

The Guardian in 2014 reported that the IPCC was concerned about the growing incidence of police using Tasers to "gain compliance", and it called for reforms in guidance and training.

Tasers are only meant to be used in exceptional cases of imminent danger but solicitors have said their use is far too wide - ordinary people are being Tasered in circumstances that do not justify their use.

The use of Tasers has trebled since 2009, increasing from 3,128 to 10,380 uses. In 2011 there was an increase of 45% in the use of Tasers.

An authorised killing by a policeman is different from plain murder.

I actually meant the question to Ab, as she was the one who posted it to you. But never mind.

I was also talking about the difference between policemen doing it, and special branch.
I dont know what you mean by plain murder. The general public?

I still dont think I get why it is different if armed police do the shoot to kill in special circumstances, or the special branch do it.

Can you give examples of misuse?

As we're still talking about the Charles de Menezes case, there were a catalogue of mistakes - not just the surveillance officer relieving himself. The "suspect" was deemed to be suspicious because he was of non-European appearance and he got off the bus at Brixton Station and then got on another bus. It was thought he was trying to evade any possible surveillance operation. In fact, Brixton Station was closed and he just went to the next station available - Stockwell. Given the seriousness of the situation, wouldn't it have been sensible to have determined why he might have taken that action before assuming he was a real threat to public safety? Anyway, if he was deemed to be a threat, why was he not prevented from boarding two buses and before entering a station?

What I think some people found particularly troubling was the conflicting statements that were given. It was initially stated that officers had shot a terrorist who had jumped over the ticket barrier and run down the escalator. Ian Blair said that de Menezes had been challenged outside Stockwell Station and that a warning had been issued before the shooting. This was later retracted. CCTV coverage of the ticketing area proved that de Menezes had placed his ticket in the barrier in the normal way. Although there was supposed to be CCTV coverage of all other areas, including the platform, it was stated that, for a variety of reasons, the cameras were not operating. Whilst being restrained, De Menezes was shot 8 times - 7 times in the head.

I think most people understand that in times of serious danger when immediate action might be needed, it is possible that even the most highly trained people will make mistakes. What I think is unacceptable is a reluctance to admit such a mistake and/or a possible attempt to mislead the public.

I feel, with some reluctance, that when there is imminent danger of a suicide bomb being detonated in a public place or of mass shootings, a shoot-to-kill policy is probably the only way to ensure safety for the general public.

However, I hope there have been major changes in the way training has been carried out since Charles de Menezes was killed. I'm concerned that the shoot-to-kill policy doesn't go the same way as that of tasering. At the outset, it was said that tasers would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances but the numbers of people being tasered increases every year and there have been many cases where they have been misused.

Lots of ideas in here about what the UK could be doing instead of bombing Syria.

stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/ok-if-bombing-syria-isn-t-the-answer-what-would-you-do-about-the-rise-of-isis

I think it matters who carrys out killings soon, what matters more is who will they kill

x posts, roses. We are saying the same thing.

A shoot to kill policy in Britain is shocking because it is not normal; our normal armed police policy is to disarm or disable (disable as in prevent from causing more mayhem) so that the person(s) involved can be charged and brought to trial.

The shoot to kill policy is important, it is where simply wounding a suspect will not do, they may still be able to shoot or blow themselves and others up.
It is rarely used.

Even cops need to relieve themselves at times.

I thought the main reason that the unfortunate Brazilian was killed was that the man watching his block of flats went 'to relieve himself' instead of staying at his post.

Yes, I think it does matter who does the killing, soon. An authorised killing by a policeman is different from plain murder.

Also, this "shoot to kill" idea is important. It's important because good marksmen are trained to shoot not to kill unless specifically told otherwise.

Very few members of our police forces are armed. How many deaths from tasers is 'several'? How many people have been fired at with tasers and not killed? And what proportion of what the armed or unarmed police deal with daily is that several? If it is a tiny proportion of the whole then it's possible to argue that that is within the bounds of human error.

I'm asking questions here, not making statements. 'Several' is too vague to mean anything much without more information.

thatbags, I agree about special branch but I am not confident in armed police , they have killed several with taser guns

So it matters who does the killing?

Exactly!