pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

And constantly mocking people's spelling errors with an added smiley is honest?

Sarcastic comments are not 'honest' IMO.

POGS, I want no favours , I was honest

Anniebach

You did your view no favours in that post.

I would be grateful if my typing errors could be ignored, I make rather a lot and have always apologised when brought to my attention , even when I am mocked.

I leave the choice with those who keep mocking, either ignore or ask me to leave the forum , A smiley added to the mocking doesn't work , mocking is mocking

For heavens sake anniebach it was a mistake, an awful mistake compounded by different things, especially as the man ran away .

Oh the typo's! Magnolia?

Oh, the sarcasm...

Apologies, I made an error, he was not here illegally , he was believed to be a terrorist who was being hunted for because Jean Charles had magnolian eyes

It was the reason that it happened, no-one is saying that it excuses it.

On the same logic, the reason that IS is targeting French gatherings and passersby could be said to be past actions by France, but that does not excuse their terrorist attcks.

So a shoot to kill policy would mean more innocent people being gunned down

Yes it was a tragedy but it always so easy to adopt the hindsight blame game .

What if he had been a terrorist wearing a suicide vest? What if, what if.

It's all very well to know the facts afterwards which afford you the luxury of knowing the truth but it does not take into account the split second decisions our police/security/government has to take/make on a daily basis.

They did get it wrong but they did not do it intentially, out of malice and not because they are trigger happy. They got it wrong on the day because they believed there was a potential terrorist threat and the focus had to be to stop any loss of life that may have resulted. The police had to make a call that probably none of us would want to do but that is the challenge every day and they made the call to shoot because he was evading arrest and that alongside the the potential for a terror attack what were they suppose to do.

Of course it isn't Anniebach and I am not aware of anyone who has even suggested as much.

An expired visa is not punishable by death

As roses said he was here illegally and would not have run otherwise. I am not saying that it was right that he was killed, far from it. I am just saying that he was not just an ordinary, innocent with nothing to hide he was obviously afraid that they were looking for him for being here illegally.

The biggest one of those being the fact that he was shot- and this was without a "shoot to kill" policy.
I too would be uncomfortable with an all encompassing "shoot to kill" policy that doesn't mean I don't think force should ever be used, or that it is wrong to defend someone or something, just that the response should be proportionate.
If we have to put it in the terms of the post if I am to defend someone I need to make damn sure the person I am targeting is the person they need protecting from and not some innocent passer-by.

If you read the full case of DeMenez, the lack of passing of information by special branch, police being given wrong directions or directions which were not passed down the line plus the witness statements from people on the tube it is obvious it was a total failure by the police and special branch. One cannot run far on a tube . An innocent man was shot and killed , that's it.

Sadly, that poor man looked like the description they had of the terrorist, and because he was staying in Britain after his visa had expired he saw the police and made a run for it. It was a combination of things that led to his death.

That first bit should have been highlighted as a quote from Ab. Not my words!

* I too have concerns about shoot to kill . Depends on the situation at the time&

But in a lot of cases, there wont be time will there, to have big long talks about individual circumstances.

I think about Jean Charles De Menezes frequently. So sad.

I partly think about him also because of a side issue.
My kids were in their early teens at the time. It came out that someone said to someone "we think it is the man" or words to that effect [ie the terrorist], but the person hearing it heard it as "it is the man", and therefore he was shot dead.
Ever since then, I drummed it into my kids to try and get their words accurate. Because in this sad case, it literally meant the difference between life and death.

Thinking of Jean Charles De Menezes and the number of other people shot dead in the last ten years, think about thirty, I too have concerns about shoot to kill . Depends on the situation at the time

I read something yesterday that explained JC's pacifism thus: he doesn't think "The West" is worth defending.

I read the title of this thread as about J Clarkson and wondered what the hell he had to do with pacifism! <leaves thread hastily>

That's about it Soontb it's what it boils down to.

Jeremy Corbyn said he was not happy about a shoot to kill policy, not don't shoot at all.