pacifists/conscienti ous objectors/Jeremy Corbyn

Jen , great cartoon doing the rounds, Trump saying - we must get all illegal immigrants out of our country , a North American Indian replying - when are you leave

That man is unbelievable.

To go back to Jean Charles, he was Brazilian, how could anybody describe him as having "Mongolian" eyes?? His pictures don't look in the slightest Oriental, so I am

Only the police or special branch can explain about the eyes

Doesn't give confidence in special branch or police does it

That particular disastrous incident doesn't, I agree. But how many, what proportion, of their assignments can go into the same disastrous category? If it is an unacceptable proportion then public confidence will be low; if it is the kind of proportion that one would expect from human mistakes in any potentially dangerous endeavour, then there's no reason not to have confidence in the special force and police.

Don't worry anniebach, John McDonnell would like to do away with them and with MI5
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12005431/John-McDonnell-signed-letter-calling-for-MI5-and-armed-police-to-be-disbanded.html

We would all feel a lot safer then, wouldn't we, when Corbyn & McDonnell win power.

Sorry - not when - if of course.

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

Careful what you wish for, rose.
According to the latest poll, Corbyn is the most satisfactory leader among the electorate.

i2.wp.com/voxpoliticalonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/151120corbynsatisfaction.png?resize=529%2C350

He is becoming more mainstream now, though, and McDonnell always looks most presentable

Excerpt from an article in The Week following the poll results:

'All of which should be encouraging for Corbyn in the run-up to Osborne's Autumn Statement next Wednesday – if it were not for another poll, this one from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

This research, using a sample size twice as large as Ipsos Mori's, found that 67 per cent of voters have no idea what Corbyn is saying: they either don't know or cannot recall what he's on about, or they believe his message is "rubbish" and "incoherent" – or that he's just saying "anything anti-Tory".

James Morris of The Spectator says: "Clearly, if voters don't understand your priorities, or think you are obsessed with nuclear disarmament, they are less likely to vote for you than if they believe you're focused on helping working people." '

That's because he keeps changing his mind and backtracking.

McDonnell is more dangerous though because he does look so presentable.

However, the British electorate are not so easily taken in - nor are the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party who are obviously so much more aware than the Labour Party at large of the shortcomings of these two.

And before anyone accuses me of being right-wing - ask long-term Labour voters who did not vote for Corbyn how they feel!

Exactly!

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?

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.

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.

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.

Even cops need to relieve themselves at times.

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.

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.

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

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

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