‘We need to seriously remind ourselves that we are being asked to cast a vote that will affect not just our lives today, but the future of generations to come’.
I desire a fairer and decent society, one that does not impose severe austerity packages on low and middle earners and so many young families. In fact, for most of us the quality of life for our own grandchildren and their prospects and safe future."
I am deeply worried about giving Teresa May and many of her RW extremists a blank cheque to do what ever they want over the next five years. I am not assured at present that we can trust her and the extreme dogma of many of her MP's. We have no guarantee she will be in office for the full term, look what happened to Maggie.
Her unwillingness to inform the Country what Brexit will mean if she gets her on way with the EU and she is not even prepared to debate her election policies on TV for us all to hear and give our approval,or dissent is worrying. Forget about Corbyn that is a red herring excuse given to protect her from facing the camera's and the Nations scrutiny.
Her term in office at the Home Office has not been the brightest for any leading conservative minister, nor as her ability been questioned to the full to be able to lead our nation through the trouble waters likely to be ahead after Brexit, her ability is still an important unknown factor.
No, I cannot fully put my trust in her at present, I need to have far greater assurances far better than the rude way she behaved at the dispatch box and at the rostrum outside number 10 last week.
We need to be quite clear the election is NOT on Brexit it is on policies for healing and improving the quality of life of the nation over the next five years. I want a bright future for my grandchildren, I am not sure that Teresa May knows how to achieve that with her political dogma, or that I can presently 100% trust her without her being willing to debate her policies in front of the Nation. She is possibly more worried about Nicola Sturgeon than Jeremy Corbyn.. A landslide victory is likely to send the wrong messages to her backbenchers for more draconian policies and I do not believe that is what the nation needs for our grandchildrens future. I am therefore coming round to voting Lib Dem.
The scenarios would not differ, so having more general police would not affect them, having more may be good for general crime though.T May isn't 'pulling any wool over my eyes' thanks, I know police numbers have been cut.
The police who stand on guard outside Westminster ( called a duty)
MP's had previously voted not to have armed police.
RAR.
but they should all have been armed on that duty there.
What does that actually mean please?
MP's had voted against that previously.
MPs voted against what?
So how would your scenarios differ RAR. You seemed to have missed that one.
Just to help out. May says there are more police because she cut the numbers hugely and the allowed the numbers to rise a little so, if you are happy to con the public, there are more police than there were - after she had cut such large numbers. If you choose to let such people as May pull the wool over your eyes in this way no one can stop you but if you base your opinions on lies I can guess what the quality of those opinions will be.
In the case of the attack on the bridge (Westminster) it didn't need more police on guard outside the building, but they should all have been armed on that duty there.
MP's had voted against that previously.
Actually ww funnily enough it's the UK that plays a huge part in their safety (EU countries) as our along with the US have the most expertise in that area.
Am sure that will continue after we leave the EU.
I am not arguing with what any police chief says about first line of defence, the police are naturally first on the scene after an attack.
I have no idea why May says there are more police, but it's probably true that there are more armed police used in recent years.
That has nothing to do with the case of more police solving the problem of terrorist attacks.
rose I have already said that Greater Manchester Police Constable said that they are our first line of defence, but because it doesn't "fit" with your argument you have chosen to ignore it.
Intelligence will pay an enormous part. Pity we've voted to leave our nearest neighbours, who will undoubtedly play a huge part in our safety.
Look at the link, roses. The police that you saw on your screens were police who had had thier leave cancelled, their shifts extended, being dranw from other areas.
May is lying. SHE said that there were more police and more armed officers on the streets than ever before. Why would she say that?
Reading your post Sun 04-Jun-17 14:59:10 RAR, what do you think an anti-terrorist unit would do to make these scenarios any different?
I am not attacking police....far from it, but it needs other ideas to combat terrorism.
A young man walks into a tube station with his backpack....it's a bomb, the place is packed.Even if a policeman were standing there, everybody would die.
Another young man pulls out a knife on a train journey and manages to stab several people to death.
Another one drives his van down a crowded street and onto the pavement where pedestrians are waiting for a bus.
None of these scenarios would be better and save people if a policeman were around, unless they were armed , and even then, doubtful (apart from the train carriage).
The main problem is that the young men who do these things may be known to the police, but cannot be followed 24 hours a day.Many are unknown to the police as well.
Why do you think we will be safer from terror attacks with more police?
Genuine question here.
More anti-terrorist units, and money/ personnel in MI5 would be the better option.
Counter terrorism units do most of the intelligence work.
Exactly anniebach
I think too much confidence is put into the police ( I come from a family where several are in the police, one high ranking, others PC and PS) so I don't say this lightly. They will be on the scene as soon as possible, arrest or shoot, mop up,
Comfort etc and do a great job but simply increasing massively ( I agree we probably need more generally) will not keep us any safer at all from terror attacks.
Thanks, GracesGran. Perfect.
It still will not persuade those who don't want to believe their eyes, and try to use distraction techniques to avoid the truth.
Yet again a prejudice (an opinion not backed by fact) is thought by a poster to be something we should believe over and above the words of an expert and the facts an figures they are shown.
Well annie you can support May all you like. But I think you are entirely misguided.
May I help Jen?
You can't do anything much by increasing police numbers hugely in the way of keeping us safer.It may reassure people to see more police around generally,
But they are not armed and are as vulnerable to knife and gun as we all are.
The police will always say they are not staffed enough( they have said this for untold years and that they want more funding) and there is probably a case for reviewing police numbers in the next Parliament.Psychos with vans knives bombs guns etc can pop up at any time, and especially the ones with vans and knives only, be unknown to the police and not even on the radar.
Have a look at the link for the chart.
Reductions in police numbers are frightening. Kirkham said that if this sort of thing happened anywhere else in the country, the police presence would be threadbare.
How come England had so many IRA bombings when there were more police .or the tube bombing, or the murder of that poor soldier outside his barracks ?
Did you actually watch the video in Jen link RAR. Now who would I believe knows best - you or Former Metropolitan Police Senior Investigating Officer Peter Kirkham?
You are not thinking straight rose police are not just "on duty" they can be employed for all sorts of duties. Cutting police numbers has done nothing for knife crime, or getting to know their patch. May was reckless as Home Secretary, and is unreliable as PM.
"Former Metropolitan Police Senior Investigating Officer Peter Kirkham states categorically that Theresa May’s claims that there are more police and more armed police on the streets than ever before is a lie, amid an excoriating assault on her credibility, honesty and on her fitness to keep this country secure.
And he’s right – as this chart of police numbers in England shows:
police nos.png
Mrs May has been called out by someone who knows the truth. Make sure everyone knows it."
From the link.
Did you see May's speeches when she was Home Secretary RAR? Do ask your SIL police person how the police felt about them.
First of all djen you can believe anything you like....it's a free country.
There may well be a case for more police on duty, but to say it would keep us safer from terrorist attacks is another story altogether.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
